Follow Up

[karmafist]

A few weeks ago, I started a thread asking people what they were doing to fight Wikipedia.

There were some good ideas and I see some other good ideas elsewhere on this forum, so I wanted to repeat my question here, hoping to spur folks onto taking more offline action.

If there is something you think I can do, please let me know. I am eager to do whatever I can to fight them. I don't know if there is anything I can do to stop them, but I know that I have to try something.

[AndyTheGrump]

Why not get a life instead?

[tarantino]

Why not get a life instead?

Don't be a jerk.

[karmafist]

Why not get a life instead?

You'd have to explain what you're doing here, then.

[AndyTheGrump]

Why not get a life instead?

Don't be a jerk.

The guy was banned from Wikipedia twelve years ago. He is still obsessed with the fact. He seems to think that a single individual can bring the whole thing down by some sort of attack. If that were possible, it would have happened already. Since it hasn't, and since obsessing for twelve years over something that can't be fixed isn't good for anyone, 'get a life' is the best advice available. It may not be the politest way to say it, but I see little reason to be polite to someone who clearly takes little time to read responses to threads, but instead asks the same question again when the answers don't accord with his fantasies of vengeance. He is wasting his time, and I see no reason why he should be encouraged to think otherwise.

[AndyTheGrump]

Why not get a life instead?

You'd have to explain what you're doing here, then.

Posting occasional comments on a subject I have some interest in.

[Renée Bagslint]

... He seems to think that a single individual can bring the whole thing down by some sort of attack. If that were possible, it would have happened already...

True enough. What might be tried next is to get together a group of people to analyse the deficiencies and weaknesses of Wikipedia, the other projects, and the Foundation, publicise them and coordinate some kind of plan that would help to bring about the inevitable collapse sooner rather than later: that does not seem to me an impossible task for a group of motivated and informed people. Perhaps they might use some kind of forum with a blog.

[karmafist]

Why not get a life instead?

You'd have to explain what you're doing here, then.

Posting occasional comments on a subject I have some interest in.

Maybe you'd be better off "getting a life" as you put it.

[Ming]

Ming is not as grumpy, but really, AtG is close enough to being right as not to matter. It's possible that someone may find a legal angle and have the money (or get someone to bankroll them) to come up with a big enough suit to bankrupt the place, but that person isn't going to be us: we don't have enough skin in the game, never mind the money. And really, the badness of WP is too mediocre to permit that. After that, it's likely obsolescence to eventually brings things down, and that means inventing or perhaps taking part in what replaces it.

[Zoloft]

I've been doing more programming at my day job, and I'll be retiring in a few years. Maybe it would be fun to put together a data aggregation site using free encyclopedias and other data sources (not run by the WMF) and see how it all works. Then provide it as a low-maintenance alternative to Wikipedia. I have a patentable search algorithm that's never been tried live.

[Textnyymi]

Do you think Everipedia could be a good alternative for idealists? Wikipedia has become "too big to fail" at this point, but it will not resist the test of obsolescence.

[Kumioko]

Why not get a life instead?

Says the guy who is only here to support the wikipedia way and criticize the critics!

[AndyTheGrump]

Do you think Everipedia could be a good alternative for idealists?...

Depends on the ideals of the idealist. I'd suggest that it exhibits almost all of the flaws of Wikipedia, and a few more besides. Certainly not anything I'd ever want to contribute to. And on a more general point, this is the flaw in suggestions that this forum should be actively working to find a replacement for Wikipedia: forum members clearly have differing concepts regarding what a good online encyclopedia should look like. And at the root of this is the question as to whether 'anyone can edit' is a good model. Personally, I think that any popular 'encyclopedia' working on that model is going to exhibit much the same issues as Wikipedia. Some WO forum members seem to base their objections around too many WP contributors being blocked (invariably 'unjustly' when in involves the WO forum member his/herself). To my mind the actual problem is that too many people who shouldn't be let within a mile of it are encouraged to contribute in the first place. This might be seen as elitism, and maybe it is, but we have seen the consequences of the alternative...

[karmafist]

And on a more general point, this is the flaw in suggestions that this forum should be actively working to find a replacement for Wikipedia: forum members clearly have differing concepts regarding what a good online encyclopedia should look like.

Just about any destination will have more than one path you can take to get there. The important part is moving forward toward that destination.

And at the root of this is the question as to whether 'anyone can edit' is a good model. Personally, I think that any popular 'encyclopedia' working on that model is going to exhibit much the same issues as Wikipedia. Some WO forum members seem to base their objections around too many WP contributors being blocked (invariably 'unjustly' when in involves the WO forum member his/herself). To my mind the actual problem is that too many people who shouldn't be let within a mile of it are encouraged to contribute in the first place. This might be seen as elitism, and maybe it is, but we have seen the consequences of the alternative...

Ask Larry Sanger how that worked. Definitely was worth a shot, but its inarguable that the elitist tack that you're also suggesting has failed.

[Renée Bagslint]

If you're going to use the word "elitist", at least be clear what you mean by it. An expert-led encyclopaedia is one which gives priority to writing good articles by choosing contributors on the basis of their knowledge of the subject and their ability to convey it effectively to the desired audience. An elitist encyclopaedia is one which gives priority to serving the interests of a self-perpetuating group by controlling the dissemination of and access to knowledge. Which of the two models do you think Mr Grump was suggesting, and which of the two do you think Wikipedia is?

[karmafist]

If you're going to use the word "elitist", at least be clear what you mean by it. An expert-led encyclopaedia is one which gives priority to writing good articles by choosing contributors on the basis of their knowledge of the subject and their ability to convey it effectively to the desired audience. An elitist encyclopaedia is one which gives priority to serving the interests of a self-perpetuating group by controlling the dissemination of and access to knowledge. Which of the two models do you think Mr Grump was suggesting, and which of the two do you think Wikipedia is?

Everyone has expertise in something. Sanger's approach ignored that and instead focused on limiting the amount of contributors, which created another group-think scenario, just like the one found at Wikipedia. The only difference is that Sanger's project ground to a halt.

[AndyTheGrump]

Everyone has expertise in something.

Possibly. What is needed though is expertise relevant to the compilation of an online encyclopaedia. And it is self-evident that not everyone has that, despite the vacuous 'anyone can edit' sloganising of Wikipedia.

[Kumioko]

Everyone has expertise in something.

Possibly. What is needed though is expertise relevant to the compilation of an online encyclopaedia. And it is self-evident that not everyone has that, despite the vacuous 'anyone can edit' sloganising of Wikipedia.

For once me and Andy (if I understand their statement correctly) are in agreement.

Wikipedia is merely a website, that's it. It tries to be an online encyclopedia but it struggles to be considered trustworthy because there is very little editorial oversight and there is no requirement for anyone to have expertise (and most don't in fact) to edit it.

In fact, most people with "expertise" are run out of the project and often times children in High School are "trusted" and made admins because, since they don't have any expertise and don't write anything, they toil away at minutae making names for themselves by leaving Welcome messages to new users, watching for vandalism and accusing people of being socks at SPI. These people are hailed as helpful while those experts who have degrees and actually know what they are talking about are accused of POV pushing or told they can't be trusted.

[karmafist]

Everyone has expertise in something.

Possibly. What is needed though is expertise relevant to the compilation of an online encyclopaedia. And it is self-evident that not everyone has that, despite the vacuous 'anyone can edit' sloganising of Wikipedia.

For once me and Andy (if I understand their statement correctly) are in agreement.

Wikipedia is merely a website, that's it. It tries to be an online encyclopedia but it struggles to be considered trustworthy because there is very little editorial oversight and there is no requirement for anyone to have expertise (and most don't in fact) to edit it.

In fact, most people with "expertise" are run out of the project and often times children in High School are "trusted" and made admins because, since they don't have any expertise and don't write anything, they toil away at minutae making names for themselves by leaving Welcome messages to new users, watching for vandalism and accusing people of being socks at SPI. These people are hailed as helpful while those experts who have degrees and actually know what they are talking about are accused of POV pushing or told they can't be trusted.

If that's the case, then the best way to mitigate the damage of open source projects is to help promote "real" encyclopedias (Britannica, etc.), since it only has true experts who are held accountable by being paid for their work.

I think that is a good approach to try, although traditional encyclopedias have been hard hit in the internet age.