Criticism of crowdsourcing
Consider that Wikipedia Review is now, according to a number of participants there, suffering from various problems of anonymous management and community composition (an influx of Wikipedia apologists). Now may be an opportune time to establish a new forum for research and discussion of similar matters as posed by Wikipedia Review, but with various improvements.
Let this page serve as a discussion place for this new possibility.
Founding principles
- Our forum will respectfully feature thoughtful, substantiated, objective criticism of the problems presented by unethical, unprofessional practices of information management on the Internet. Participants will use ethical journalistic practice in order to describe documented situations involving these issues. Fueling of "drama" and interpersonal conflicts will be discouraged where possible. However, it may be necessary to discuss individual participants on particular websites in specific situations, such as to exemplify "conflict of interest" problems.
- Both the ownership and administrative management of the new forum shall all be self-identifying persons with legitimate biographies that map to real-world authenticity.
- The target audience of the forum will be journalists who publish and broadcast in the areas of technology and information, academics whose research touches these subjects, and the general public. Some of those in the targeted audience will not have an intimate understanding of the inner workings and jargon of subject site policies (e.g., Wikipedia has an extremely complex rule set), so our forum will attempt to address such intricacies by spelling them out in layman's terms.
- Topical discussions will not be limited to Wikipedia. Other Internet sites for examination may include Google Knol, Citizendium, Encyclopedia Britannica, Wikia, Biographicon, Veropedia, Encyclopedia Dramatica, etc. We can discuss all matter of social, political, commercial, and academic consequences of any of the following:
- User-generated content
- Free licenses, the "Free culture movement", and copyright violations
- Wikis
- Section 230 considerations
- Anonymity and privacy on the Internet
- Participants in the discussion may elect to do so from behind a pseudonymous cloak, but they will be advised that their opinions and status as participants shall carry less "cachet" (clout, gravitas, etc.) than those who self-identify and participate transparently.
Format
Which format would be most suitable for this new forum? Would it be possible to have both formats? If so, what would be more appropriate to have as the site's major format?
Message board
- Pros
- Fluid discussions between members
- More directly participative than a wiki, as each party may express their side without having to include the concepts already presented.
- Cons
- Derailment of threads
- Appears amateur
- More likely to cause conflict, especially between "problem" users
Wiki
- Pros
- Output is inherently more "polished" and "reasoned" than a message board
- The content is more immediately usable for journalists, academics and media professionals.
- Cons
- Discussion between parties gets lost in "consensus" of page
- Using the same format as that of the subject that one is trying to describe may not be a valid way of producing analysis, especially if the same core principles (ie NPOV, "consensus") are used. It's perhaps important to "think outside the of box".
A combination of Message Board/Wiki
- Pros
- Is already the "setup" at the WR, with the message board and the "blog". That part of the WR model seems to work quite well.
- Separation of proven information made by identified editors and hypothesis/opinion made by either known editors or pseudonyms might prove to be practical and also prudent from a legal standpoint. The information contained on the Wiki should be sourced, provable and thoroughly investigated before it is posted. This would seem to indicate that only known editors should be allowed to have access to that section. If access to the "wiki" is reserved for named individuals, then the pseudonyms can still provide information or evidence on the message board, which can later be sourced and investigated. This allows separation of "theories" and "hypothesis'" from actual sourced and investigated pieces of information. This might also be useful from a legal standpoint if a disclaimer is given on the message board concerning the validity of statements made there, as opposed to the wiki. If this possibility seems to be interesting, perhaps this should be split off into another section?
- Cons
- Some information may get lost in the process of sifting through the posts made to the message board.
- Using a separate system with the message board being the only area accessible to pseudonymous contributors might make the area attractive to vandals and other attention-seeking individuals.
Name ideas
What might we call this site?
- Criticism of Crowdsourcing
- Wrongs of the Internet
- Rethinking Free Culture
- Wikipedia Analysis (attn: the term "Wikipedia" is trademarked. Can we use this name? ) or WikiAnalysis
- WikiReader (Americans will remember the "Weekly Reader" from Grade school...although this might not work for an international audience)
- Center for Internet Criticism
- Internet Ethics Report
- Internet Concerns
- The Folly of Crowds
- CyberCulture Review
One of the reasons that "The Wikipedia Review" has been so successful as a concept is that the name is precise, yet neutral. A successful name will most likely have a neutral, objective(perhaps scientific), element which will not necessarily be seen as being negative towards the subject. It is perhaps more effective to try to remain objective in our criticism, as to let the objective evidence speak for itself.
Conversely, even a forum with a lousy name like "Wikback.com" was quite successful for the brief time before its owner began to censor content in haphazard and unethical ways.
Reserved domain names
- WikipediaMustDie.com
- GregoryKohs.com
- MimboJimbo.com
- MyWikiBiz.com
