[PREV - RHINO_SKIN]    [TOP]

COMMONS_OWNED


                                                 August  8, 2013

                                                       RHINO_SKIN
Let's sketch out the social dynamics:
How can anyone "own" a wikipedia page?

Obviously, anyone can walk up and start writing--
excuse me, editing-- and all are subject to the     WIKI_JARGON
same restrictions, formal or informal.

So suppose you're, consciously or not, interested
in "owning" a page as your territory, how could
you possibily do that?

One thing you could do, is camp out and instantly              WIKI_CENTRAL
push back against anyone who tries to change the
page.  Revert their changes immediately, with           Jason Scott makes the
some legalistic mumbo-jumbo in the revert               point that "He who
message, preferably using a bunch of acronyms.          moves first wins":

If the person who tried to change the page is                 B-Change
something of a newbie, this might actually work to            A-Revert
intimdate them, you can give them the feeling that            B-Revert
they just don't belong and get them to skulk away.            A-Revert

Even if they're a little more experienced, you          Three reverts and
can then start playing wikipedia lawyer with            you're out!
them, explaining in detail why their changes are
inappropriate using many references to the many
"guidelines" that have accumulated.
   
If you're completely, stubbornly obstinate about    
this, and continually repeat yourself in blunt      
impatient tones, preferably in a way that           
implies they must be idiots (without acutally    
saying so), you may be able to provoke them into    
some frustrated ranting-- after a couple of         
cycles of this it's time to call in the                    DISTANT_GALLERY
moderators: every moderator at wikipedia has a      
talent for the obvious, and they are guaranteed        CYBER_BULL
to see only the flamer and not the flamebait.          
                                             
That's how you keep control in a "consensus"-
driven do-it-to-them-before-they-do-it-to-you-ocracy.
                                                          CONSENUS_ILLUSION
It's entirely possible to take on a territorial
"owner" like this, and if not win exactly, to
minimize loses, but it's a lot of work, and not
a lot of fun, and it's a rare volunteer who has
the patience to keep this up for any length of
time, which is-- I suspect-- why so many of us  
have all but given up on working on wikipedia.            


   But Jimbo Wales has never seen this
   happen though, so I must be mistaken:

      [ref]

   From a question titled "Game of Articles" by 
   a AmiMoJo, and the answer by Wales:

   "It seems like most major articles are 'owned' by
   some editors who want to impose their own views and
   opinions on them. ... The only solution seems to be
   for other editors to sit on the article constantly
   undoing the other editors edits. It's a war of
   attrition and it seems like the bad guys mostly
   win. A lot of good editors have given up. ... Many
   previously good articles are now full of industry
   shill references and obviously biased rubbish."


   "Wales: Every aspect of this question is false.      (Oh. Well that's
   No major articles are 'owned' by anyone. The          okay then.)
   rules of Wikipedia are designed to prevent this."

   "There is a bit of a war of attrition in some
   cases-- but it is overwhelmingly the case that
   the good guys win."

   "All evidence is that the quality of Wikipedia
   has steadily increased over time.  ..."              That's an interesting
                                                        claim.  I've heard
                                                        of some "studies"
   " ... usually people who have this                   of this, but they
   complaint fade into the background                   were very limited,
   when asked to justify it, or show me                 and years old.
   an example-- and in the vast
   majority of cases it turns out that                    In particular,
   the complaint is really 'Why am *I*                    AniMoJo's assertion
   not allowed to own this article?'"                     about "industry
                                            FISKING       shill references"
       Personally, I would like to see                    seems like it would
       Wales's examples of weak examples.                 be an interesting
       I can imagine that they happen,                    thing to look into.
       but I also know that the social
       dynamic I've described here is                        I fear it's a
       a real phenomena.                                     little difficult
                                                             to categorize
       Along with AniMoJo, I have a                          objectively though.
       strong sense that:                    
                                                             And there's a
       (1) I am a good person wikipedia would                problem where the
       like to have volunteer                                people involved
                                                             in an industry
       (2) many other volunteers there are                   really do know a
       not-so-good people, who I would just                  lot about it and
       rather not deal with.                                 may be some of
                                                             the best sources.
       
       
--------
[NEXT - WALK_AWAY]