[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]