Talk:Criticism of crowdsourcing
See Archive 1 for October 8-11, 2008 content.
Now Is The Wiki Of Our Discontent
The 1st Part of the Discontention
JA: There is a fundamental social wrong that hides at the core of Wikipedia, a wrongness that is complicit with the worst of its content, but far more its cause than its effect. We need to get at that underlying wrongness if we are going to comprehend, much less remediate, the problematic phenomena that we find in the Wikipedia domain. Jon Awbrey 09:12, 12 October 2008 (PDT)
JA: That is one of the reasons why I continue to have reservations about taking the concepts of "crowdsourcing" and "user-generated content" as a basis for our critique of Wikioid phenomena. Doing that only plays into the dodge of content-blindness (analogous to snow-blindness) that keeps so many would-be critics running around in circles of futility until they get frostbyte and die in the drifts. So let's watch out for that. Jon Awbrey 09:22, 12 October 2008 (PDT)
BK: To my mind, the architectural error in WMF-sponsored projects is that Jimbo adopted an inappropriate regulatory mechanism for an educational enterprise. Jimbo adopted and maladapted the Hammurabic Method of Social Regulation which (I claim) is a monumental and tragic error. The primary tool of governance (blocking and banning) corresponds to Bill of Attainder — a corrosive, ill-conceived, and ill-advised regulatory device. It was problematic when Hammurabi defined it some 3750 years ago, and it remains problematic today. Whoever came up with that foolish idea should go jump in the lake. —Moulton 11:16, 12 October 2008 (PDT)
JA: Thanks for writing a short paragraph. That encourages me to try and work through it bit by bit.
- Yes, the fundamental social wrong is a built-in feature of the social-technical architecture, or "SocWare", for short. And the buttons for blocking and banning are certainly a big part of it.
- Yes, the fundamental social wrong might be called a bad case of Hammer-Rabies gone viral, but I don't think that's the be-all end-all of it.
JA: I think that we have to keep asking the question — If the SocWare is so maladapted to the aims of Education And Information, and yet Wikipediots persist in promoting it, then what is the SocWare well-adapted to do? Jon Awbrey 11:40, 12 October 2008 (PDT)
BK: The Hammurabic Method of Social Regulation (including the specific version of it adopted by Jimbo) is optimally adapted to sustain a Drama Engine. —Moulton 13:05, 12 October 2008 (PDT)
JH: Hammurabic code like this one …
If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the accused is not guilty, and he escape unhurt, then he who had brought the accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.
JH: That not very helpful … I would suggest some thing more simpler, like the golden rule and the 10 commandments. Joehazelton 16:25, 12 October 2008 (PDT)
JA: Moulton, I cannot tell if you are using the word "drama" in the ordinary sense of the word or in line with the way that Wikipediots abuse the term, but you seem to be saying that the Wikipedia System is good at producing this "drama" and that Wikipediots keep cranking their engine because they desire this "good". Jon Awbrey 20:05, 12 October 2008 (PDT)
BK: I am using the term "drama" in the sense of dramaturgy as a vehicle for embedding educational, cultural, or moral lessons within a dramatic literary storyline featuring interacting characters (e.g. protagonist and antagonist). It is my thesis that Jimbo unintentionally devised an efficient drama engine by hamhandedly misdesigning Wikipedia's social regulatory mechanism. As I see it, Jimbo's fundamental mistake was adopting blocking and banning as the principal tool of governance, thus reprising a cyberspace reification of the classical (i.e. biblical) drama of scapegoating and alienation. —Moulton 05:50, 13 October 2008 (PDT)
JA: It sounds like you are trying to use the word "drama" in the ordinary sense and trying to avoid abusing it in the Wikipidgin Manner of Speaking (WP:MoS), but I don't get the sense that you are being consistent in that attempt.
JA: At any rate, your Theory Of The Archdrone's Mind (BK:TOTAM) that ascribes unintentionality to the design of the hive is a theory that I view with suspicion. The way I see it, BK:TOTAM is nothing but a variation on the theme of WP:AGF. As such, I have to regard it as naive beyond measure. Jon Awbrey 06:52, 13 October 2008 (PDT)
BK: I'm using "dramaturgy" in the sense of the Bardic Arts, full stop. It is my thesis that Jimbo did not conscientiously and deliberately set out to create the Internet's most popular Drama Engine when he conceived, adopted, and blessed the emerging social dynamics of Wikipedia. —Moulton 10:20, 13 October 2008 (PDT)
JA: People sometimes use the word "drama" to denote any series of actions and events that are filled with emotion and suspense, as in "the dramatic developments on Wall Street this week". Wiki-Pidgin speakers use "drama" as a wiki-pejorative term that means pretty much the same thing as every other wiki-pejorative term, to wit, "We No Like It". But you seem to be saying that you do not intend those looser usages.
JA: Sometimes people use the word "drama" to describes any kind of Amateur Participatory Improv Psychodrama (APIP). Maybe you are using the word that way, but for my part I do not call that Art.
JA: Dramaturgy, in the sense of the Dramatic Arts, demands Dramaturges, in the sense of Dramatic Artists. These include playwrights, actors, directors, producers, stagecraft artists and managers, and so on and so forth as the credits roll. Are you seriously trying to tell us that you are crediting Jimbo & Company with that sort of Art? Jon Awbrey 11:02, 13 October 2008 (PDT)
BK: In concert with the Bardic Arts and Barsoom Tork Associates, I've published a song about it: Hey JUDE —Moulton 11:04, 13 October 2008 (PDT)
BK: Jon, I think you are conflating a dramatic production with a drama engine. Think of a drama engine as the analog of a physics engine in a pinball game. Jimbo gave the world a free-wheeling drama engine — a venue where arbitrary actors can don costumes and synthetic personas and engage in improvisational street theater with each other. The result is a post-modern, pre-apocalyptic theater of the absurd. —Moulton 14:14, 13 October 2008 (PDT)
JA: Thanks for finally admitting that you are NOT using the word "drama" in the ordinary sense of the word but more in line with the way that Wikipediots abuse the term. "Drama Engine" is a neologism that you just made up, so of course the notion of a drama engine cannot figure in the ordinary meaning of the word "drama". Jon Awbrey 19:06, 13 October 2008 (PDT)
Dear Abbie,
I tried shouting "theatre" in a crowded fire but it did not improve The Review — and then the Firemen dashed on the scene and I discovered that my Drama Engine was no match for their Fire Engine.
Just call me,
All Wet @ Fahrenheit 451
BK: Jon, I did not coin the term "drama engine" as you can discover by reading about first generation drama engines, lame though they may be for the purposes that game designers have in mind. Jimbo's Unintended Drama Engine (JUDE) operates at what I imagine would correspond to a third generation drama engine in the game world. —Moulton 21:59, 13 October 2008 (PDT)
JA: I apologize for accusing you of Originality, but your esoteric gamer-tech geek-world reference, however amusing, only serves to prove my point that the new-fangled notion of a "drama engine" forms no part of what enters the mind of the average person in the street when he or she hears the word "drama".
JA: But let us put the definition of drama aside for now. You are trying to reduce the bardic and dramatic arts to a kind of Accidental Stage Setting (ASS). And that is nothing short of absurd. It is true that people can learn from a climactic absurdity, but what they must learn is the absurdity of the collective premiss. Jon Awbrey 02:46, 14 October 2008 (PDT)
The 2nd Part of the Discontention
JA: By way of marshaling our critical resources on behalf of the end in view, let me recall the charge that I sounded at the top of this topic, after which I will sort through the intervening discussion in a game try at racking up the points of agreement and disagreement.
JA: There is a fundamental social wrong that hides at the core of Wikipedia, a wrongness that is complicit with the worst of its content, but far more its cause than its effect. We need to get at that underlying wrongness if we are going to comprehend, much less remediate, the problematic phenomena that we find in the Wikipedia domain. Jon Awbrey 09:12, 12 October 2008 (PDT)
Future use of this page
I would like to encourage everyone using MyWikiBiz for various discussions to please adhere to a policy of "don't derail pages". You are welcome to have conversations about the origins and ownership of Wikipedia Review, as you are welcome to have conversations about the identity of various cross-dressing British officials. Just have these conversations on their own pages.
As for the future of the "new forum" that we've been discussing, I would like to draw everyone's attention to my current mindset, as expressed here. Thanks, everyone! -- MyWikiBiz 16:22, 12 October 2008 (PDT)
Blocked from Wikipedia Review
I'm not certain if this is on-topic or not, but I've been blocked from Wikipedia Review for revealing that long-time poster "Heat" is in fact the dishonest and corrupt Wikipedia adminstrator/sockpuppeteer "Homeontherange", a.k.a. Andy Lehrer, Canadian socialist activist: Wikipedia Review welcomed and protects this inveterate liar solely because he opposes SlimVirgin and Jayjg (diffs forthcoming).
It also seems probable that the new poster desiderat is yet another sockpuppet of Andy Lehrer.
I would like to verify that exposing the leadership of Wikipedia Review to scrutiny, as well as that of Wikipedia, is a valid goal for this site.Proabivouac 01:22, 13 October 2008 (PDT)
- I have begun Wikipedia Review here. Ockham 03:22, 13 October 2008 (PDT)
"Krimpet" coverup
Let's also observe that Wikipedia Review has covered up the identity of male transvestite "Krimpet" (a.k.a. Francis "Francine" S. Rogers,) a Wikipedia administrator known for outing others and attacking their BLPs, by deleting an entire thread.
"Krimpet," like "Poetlister" and others is a male tranvestite pretending to be a woman: [1], [2],[3], [4]
The reason this was covered up is very likely that "Krimpet", like "Poetlister" and "Homeontherange," opposes SlimVirgin (an actual woman, not a tranvestite as per the Review's staff) and Jayjg.Proabivouac 03:53, 13 October 2008 (PDT)
- OK how we deal with this is by the MWB 'directory' system. I have created Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Wikipedia Review (Criticism) which contains any potentially defamatory information. I am responsible for this directory, and only I have passworded access to it. You can create your own directory if you wish. We can share each others' material if we wish. Mainspace material such as Wikipedia Review must be verifiable and sourced in a similar way to Wikipedia itself. Ockham 04:04, 13 October 2008 (PDT)
- Whether KRIMPET, POETLISTER are TRANIES, CROSS DRESSES, DYKE'S OR FAIRES has really no bearing on Wikipeida in so much as These people have hurt others with the way they have used Wikipeida as a weapon of revenge and vindictive pursuits.Joehazelton 04:35, 13 October 2008 (PDT)
- This is why I suggest using the 'Directory' system for such material, if it is felt necessary (I am mildly intrigued by this sort of tabloid material). Reliable, sober and well-sourced material that would be useful to the more respectable journals, and of course to the Sloan Foundation can go in mainspace. Ockham 04:56, 13 October 2008 (PDT)
Wikipedia - why it needs a warning label
This is a work in progress, and I will try to improve it later, but you can read it if you like. http://catonine.virtue.nu/thoughts/wikipedia.html I tried to make it like Lir's one, but I hope on more important topics, with a more relevant worldview. Blissyu2 02:26, 13 October 2008 (PDT)
- Again, the way to do this is to create an article Port Arthur Massacre (Wikipedia) in which you can reference these claims and have other people investigate them. This (if your claims are correct) would form part of a series of articles here which are about the Wikipedia articles, where there is evidence of bias or corruption in those articles. Ockham 04:53, 13 October 2008 (PDT)
- I have done that already [5] (it does probably need shortening however). Of course, that is not the sole aspect of my web page, and only represents one example of one of the major problems. There is no doubt in my mind that Wikipedia's article on that topic is, basically, a deliberately false article, as it does not, as an article as a whole, agree with either the recognised truth of the issue nor what the majority of people say, and deliberately false statements have been added to the article, primarily by Thebainer, with enormous control of the article, initially by Robert Merkel but later taken over by Thebainer. I was going to put all of that in a nice readable format in that section on my web site criticism. Again, however, that is just one aspect of what is wrong with Wikipedia, and just one example of truth changing. SlimVirgin's truth changing of the Lockerbie bombing article on Wikipedia is just as notable. Unfortunately, I am not an expert on the Lockerbie bombing so can't get into specifics of what she did, only that it is obvious that she did change truth. Blissyu2 04:29, 14 October 2008 (PDT)
Thank you
I want to thank this page for underscoring in my mind the importance of the new criticism project to be a closed group of content generators, and for it not to begin in wiki format. -- MyWikiBiz 08:50, 13 October 2008 (PDT)
- MY suggestion for the format, your criticism should be in three parts..
First part: A page, where any one may submit criticism, in public, in which all discuss it in a free for all, no holds bar discussion. No rules less one... No attack on each other just their augment.
Second part: After a time, a committee, would review the article and decide to add/delete some or all of said article to to a protected part where it will stand.
Third part, I would have a wide open form, "boogie check" no rules less Defamation, Liable. All comers welcome, a thunderdrome of ideas regarding wikipeida so all have say.. from the crazy loon to the highest Ivory tower pigeon.Joehazelton 15:55, 13 October 2008 (PDT)
