User:Otheus/Vaknin

From: me AT gmail . com To: palma@unet.com.mk

Mr. Varkin, my previous email had several typos. Please disregard that copy. Thank you.

Your insights into Wikipedia left me scratching my head. Essentially, while your overall point has some merit, you make several factual errors. Whether it's useful for me or not to engage in debate with you about this, or whether or not many have preceded me, I will make point out these errors:

Sin 1

Error 1.1

The Wikipedia is opaque and encourages recklessness. The overwhelming majority of contributors to and editors of the Wikipedia remain anonymous throughout the process. Anyone can register and members' screen-names (handles) mean [sic] nothing and lead [sic] nowhere.

Registering handles is called pseudonymity. It does not lead no where (see next point). One may ask, "Who is Sam Varkin"? Just because a book and website bear his name does not mean the letter writer is you, or that the legal person "Sam Varkin" really exists. Maybe it does.

Error 1.2

It leads nowhere.

It is actually generally more reliable than email as a source of identification. It is much easier for me to send an email as "palma@unet.com.mk" than it is for me to write or edit an article as someone else wikipedia. Furthermore, registering under a handle will leave a paper trail of IP Addresses. I doubt you know very much about the technology of this, but essentially, IP Addresses can often be used to identify real people.

Error 1.3

Thus, no one is forced to take responsibility for what he or she adds to the "encyclopedia" or subtracts from it.

Besides from the obvious nature where other users can redact irresponsible additions, there are now over 1000 administrators who can block specific users or IP addresses from further editing. The threat of blocking is often used to preclude individuals from disruptively or irresponsibly editing selected articles.

This amounts to an impenetrable smokescreen: identities can rarely be established and evading the legal consequences of one's actions or omissions is easy.

As stated above, the smokescreen is not impenetrable. As for as evading the legal consequences, I refer you to litigation currently in progress against defamers of Fuzzy Zoeller's Wikipedia page.

Error 1.4

Everything in the Wikipedia can be and frequently is edited, re-written and erased and this includes the talk pages and even, to my utter amazement, the history pages! ...

The past versions of pages ("history pages") cannot be re-written. Administrators may delete them, but doing so without consensus can result in de-adminship. Furthermore, once deleted, they may be restored, and users may request their restoration. Now if by history pages you meant "pages on history", my response would be, "well, duh!"

Sin 2

Error 2.1

The Wikipedia is anarchic, not democratic . The Wikipedia is not an experiment in online democracy,

You are right when you say "it is not an experiment in online democracy". But it is a democracy. Democracy equates to "one person, one vote", and that is the case on Wikipedia. You might be misinformed into thinking that democracy means majority rule. But that is not the case. It is true, however, that Wikipedia, in most regards, does not use "majority rule" for affecting outcomes. It is mandated that users reach consensus to resolve disputes. Even a single objector can make changes that result in consensus-approved edits.

Error 2.2

[Wikipedia is] a form of pernicious anarchy.

If Wikipedia is pernicious, please name names of people who have been materially harmed!

Wikipedia is definitely, provably not an anarchy or form of it. There are strict, but few, policies. There are several guidelines. There are an army of volunteers which patrol the adherence to those guidelines and policies, and an "elite" group of over 1000 administrators who enforce those policies. A very elite few, acting a judges, will arbitrate among those for whom policy adherence is disputed. Finally, anyone can contribute in the consensus building of the policies and guidelines.

Error 2.3

It espouses two misconceptions: (a) That chaos can and does lead to the generation of artifacts with lasting value and (b) That knowledge is an emergent, mass phenomenon.

I know of no where where Wikipedia, per se, espouses these ideas. And as point in fact, (b) is probably not a misconception, but the way its phrased "with lasting value" makes it entirely impossible to objectively assess.

Error 2.4

But The Wikipedia is not conducive to the unfettered exchange of information and opinion that is a prerequisite to both (a) and (b). It is a war zone where many fear to tread. the Wikipedia is a negative filter (see the next point).

It is conducive, although it could be argued that there are better online forums. However, it is certainly not a "war zone". Please name names of people who have died or been shot at or assaulted as a result of being in this "war zone". If you are using this as a metaphor, then what do you mean "where many fear to tread"? Another metaphor for people who cowardly refuse to enjoin debate and consensus building? Hrm.

Sin 3

The Might is Right Editorial Principle. Lacking quality control by design,

Already addressed.

... the Wikipedia rewards quantity. The more one posts and interacts with others, the higher one's status, both informal and official.

That is generally correct, though not necessarily so. By the way, how did you earn your PhD without resorting to the above tactic? [Oh wait, I see you earned your PhD from a paper mill and that your link to your "thesis" is not specific enough to find it, nor does it seem to have been cited. Fsacinating.]

Error 3.1

In the Wikipedia planet, authority is a function of the number of edits, no matter how frivolous.

Absolutely wrong. There is no counter of one's edits, although it's possible to see another's contributions. It also contravenes what you said ea[r]lier about Wikipedia being an anarchy. But regardless, the awarding of authority, such as administratorship, is done so by an examination of merit and quality. Since everyone's edit is essentially record of contributions, this merit and quality can be judged fairly objectively.

Error 3.2

The more aggressive (even violent) a member is; the more prone to flame, bully, and harass; the more inclined to form coalitions with like-minded trolls; the less of a life he or she has outside the Wikipedia, the more they are likely to end up being administrators.

Absolutely wrong! First, please name a case where a wikipedian acted violently toward another! The Wikipedia policies of civility are enforced. Name-calling and even doubting another's good faith can and has resulted in the bully being blocked. Look, there ARE cases of abuse. It is NOT heaven or utopia. However, there are a great number of checks and balances to make your statement completely factually incorrect.

The result is erratic editing. Many entries are completely re-written (not to say vandalized) with the arrival of new kids on the Wikipedia block. Contrary to advertently-fostered impressions, the Wikipedia is not a cumulative process. Its text goes through dizzyingly rapid and oft-repeated cycles of destruction and the initial contributions are at times far deeper and more comprehensive than later, "edited", editions of same.

True, but this does not follow from anything you have said so far. And yet, many entries are high quality. How does that happen?

Error 3.3

Wikipedia is misrepresented as an open source endeavor. Nothing can be further from the truth. Open source efforts, such as Linux, involve a group of last-instance decision-makers that coordinate, vet, and cull the flow of suggestions, improvements, criticism, and offers from the public. Open source communities are hierarchical, not stochastic.

Not all open source communities are hierarchical, as you imply. Different projects employ different methods of contribution, many being completely open. And more to the point, your comparing Wikipedia to a single software project is like comparing an apple to, say, varietals of grapes. Furthermore, you are confusing the openness of content, the openness of contribution, and the openness of distribution. As far as content is concerned, both Wikipedia and most GNU-licensed Open Source projects material can be retrieved and repackaged. Anyone can write and contribute software for Linux, distribute their own kernel, package their own tools, etc. I could, for instance, package and distribute something called "OtheusX" based on Linux, but one that crashes more often than.

Moreover, it is far easier to evaluate the quality of a given snippet of software code than it is to judge the truth-content of an edit to an article, especially if it deals with "soft" and "fuzzy" topics, which involve the weighing of opinions and the well-informed exercise of value judgments.

Hah! You do software development?

Sin 4

Wikipedia is against real knowledge

In your first 3 points, I have cited 11 factual errors. Would this not imply that you are "against" real knowledge. Of course not! It's obvious you don't understand the term real or the term knowledge.

Recently, on a discussion list dedicated to books with a largely academic membership... Everyone professed to prefer the content proffered by the Wikipedia to the information afforded by the Britannica Encyclopedia or by established experts!

It seems you are saying that academes prefer Wikipedia to the Encyclopedia Britannica. I have no objection to this.

Two members attempted to disproved my assertion (regarding the error in the Wikipedia) by pointing to a haphazard selection of links to a variety of Internet sources. Not one of them referred to a reputable authority on the subject, yet, based largely on the Wikipedia and a sporadic trip in cyberspace, they felt sufficiently confident to challenge my observation (which is supported by virtually all the leading luminaries in the field).

What we are seeing is a pattern of failed consensus building. You made an assertion "supported by virtually ...alll... in the field" yet could not cite a single reference to refute these non-reputable authorities. Okay, whose fault is this?

These gut reactions mirror the Wikipedia's "editorial" process. To the best of my knowledge, none of my respondents was qualified to comment. None of them holds a relevant academic degree. Neither do I. But I strove to stand on the shoulders of giants when I spotted the error while my respondents explicitly and proudly refused to do so as a matter of principle!

Does standing on the shoulders of giants mean you can't reach the library shelf and cite the relevant references?

Error 4.1

This may reflect the difference in academic traditions between the United States and the rest of the world. Members of individualistic, self-reliant and narcissistic societies inevitably rebel against authority and tend to believe in their own omnipotence and omniscience. Conversely, the denizens of more collectivist and consensus-seeking cultures, are less sanguine and grandiose and more willing to accept teachings ex-cathedra. So said Theodore Millon, a great scholar and an undisputed authority on personality disorders.

Actually, he did not say that. You are not even paraphrasing him. You are paraphrasing something he quoted from Warren and Caponi's "The Role of Culture in the Development of Narcissistic Personality Disorders in America, Japan and Denmark". Or perhaps you are quoting something he paraphrased from Warren and Caponi. Either way, thanks to Google. Oh wait, that's on the web site from your book.

Error 4.2

In the course of history, there has been very few statements [I believe 1] ever issued ex-cathedra.

Sin 5

Error 5.1

Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia

According to various definitions, etymologies, etc, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. At least, this is its core function. Since you seem rather poor remembering the definitions of words and looking up stuff, I'll help you here, from the American Heritage Dictionary:

Encyclopedia: A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically. (Etymology: ... In New Latin the word was chosen as the title of a reference work covering all knowledge. )

One could argue that Wikipedia is not arranged alphabetically, but that's just an argument about how the format in which it is published and organized. One could also argue that it is not comprehensive containing all knowledge. In that case, I would argue no such thing could exist.

Yet, at best it is a community of users who exchange eclectic "information" on a regular and semi-structured basis.

This is its mechanism of being an encyclopedia. I suppose that then, of a more traditional encyclopedia, it could be stated as such:

Yet, at best it is a community of eclectic members who exchange information on a semi-regular but structured basis.

Quite a difference, is it not?

Error 5.2

This deliberate misrepresentation snags most occasional visitors who are not acquainted with the arcane ways of the Wikipedia and trust it implicitly and explicitly to deliver facts and well-founded opinions. There is a lot the Wikipedia can do to dispel such dangerous misconceptions (for instance, it could post disclaimers on all its articles and not only on a few selected pages).

There is no misrepresentation, and of course it is not deliberate.

On every page, you can easily find the link to "About Wikipedia". From the "About Wikipedia page" -- in June of 2006, before your article was submitted to American Chronicle -- it states in the very first line using an increased font size that it is an Encyclopedia "anyone can edit". Only an idiot might fail to make the connection to pitfalls of using it as an authority. From the section regarding using Wikipedia as a research tool: "it is important to use Wikipedia carefully if it is intended to be used as a research source, since individual articles will, by their nature, vary in standard and maturity. There are guidelines and information pages designed to help users and researchers do this effectively." The link is then to the full article on "Researching with Wikipedia".

About your claim that "most occasional visitors... trust it implicitly ... to deliver facts and well-founded opinions". I would be interested in seeing a survey on this. Thank you in advanced for providing me with references.

That it chooses to propagate the deception is telling and renders it the equivalent of an intellectual scam, a colossal act of con-artistry. With the increasing count of factual errors you have made so far, you might think twice about accusing someone else of " an intellectual scam, a colossal act of con-artistry", unless you expect your readers to conclude "takes one to know one."

High school and university students now make the Wikipedia not only their first but their exclusive "research" destination. I'm sure there are those that do, but in my day, we also used traditional encyclopedias and Cliff Notes as such.

The Wikipedia thus retards genuine learning by serving as the path of least resistance and as a substitute to the real thing: edited, peer-reviewed works of reference.

But now I'm very confused about your argument. You started "sin #5" by complaining that Wikipedia is not an Encyclopedia, that it is not even a tertiary source. But now you seem to be complaining that it is not a primary source, a research journal? You could make the very same complaint about a traditional Encyclopedia, so again, what is your point?

Error 5.3

Consider, for instance the online and free Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Each entry is written by an expert but is frequently revised based on input from members of the public. It combines the best elements of the Wikipedia (feedback-driven evolution) with none of its deficiencies.

SEP has many positive aspects to it. But it has some of Wikipedia's "deficiencies", plus more. The most glaring distinctive deficiency is that the SEP contains articles only on Philosophy, and it is somewhat incomplete at that, omitting even basic introductory articles on the world's major religions or their figures, such as Christianity, Muhammad, but includes Confucius. Now, we could look at "IMDB" as a similar encyclopedia on movies, television, acting, etc. And I'm sure there are a plethora of other such encyclopedae. But Wikipedia has it all, and if not now, just add to it. Another deficiency germane with SEP is its torrid writing style; it is clearly written by academes who have lost (or never had) the art of accessible rhetoric. Third, its bias reflects the opinions of its handful (about 40) editors, just as there are in other Encyclopedae. For instance, SEP has Karl Marx, but not Adam Smith; Jean-Paul Sartre, not Ayn Rand.

Sin 6

The Wikipedia is rife with libel and violations of copyrights

Regrettable, yes, but constantly being improved. Your points here [are outdated]omitted from email.

Error 6.1

Books - from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual down to my own, far humbler, tomes - are regularly ripped off and posted in various articles, with and without attribution.

Unless someone has uploaded an entire book in electronic form, you cannot make the claim that Wikipedia is ripping off books.

Error 6.2

The Wikipedia resembles P2P (peer-to-peer) networks such as the first incarnation of Napster: it allows users to illegally share pirated content using an application (Wiki) and a central Website (the Wikipedia).

This displays such a profound misunderstanding of peer-to-peer networks and the nature of client-server technology, I will have to just point you to the Wikipedia article on Napster, Client-server, and peer-to-peer. It also exhibits a lack of understanding on what "pirated content" really refers to.

The Wikipedia does not provide any effective mechanism to redress wrongs, address problems, and remedy libel and copyright infringements. I cannot tell if this was a factual error at the time, but it is clearly now a grave infringement of policy; copyrighted material not covered under fair-use must be removed immediately. For non-American based wikipedias, the laws are appropriate to their hosting country.

Editing the offending articles is useless as these are often "reverted" (restored) by the offenders themselves.

Yeah, possibly, but then, you know what? You can revert it back again!!

Error 6.3

The Wikipedia is an edited publication. The New-York Times is responsible for anything it publishes in its op-ed section. Radio stations pay fines for airing obscenities in call-in shows. Why treat the Wikipedia any differently?

You like having it both ways, don't you. First, it's not edited -- it's anarchy! Then, it's edited again! But I cite this as a factual error not because you are inconsistent, but because it cannot be regarded as a "publication". For historical and legal reasons, published means something specific, not really pertaining to the web. In modern times, the term has been co-opted as such, but you seem to use it in a legal context.

Error 6.4

At any rate, radio stations fall under FCC regulations, which mean[s] [callers] on the air cannot yell obscenities. However, callers calling in can make slanderous statements without the Radio stating being responsible. Also, I believe satellite "radio" is exempt. Further, the NYT can pretty much say anything they want, because, well, it's an opinion page. They could print obscenities, but would be responsible for libel. However, I believe they could not be similarly sued for "letters to the editor".

PostScript

Also, I will address one note in your "postscript". You mention something about "Free Speech". I will simply note that responding to someone's speech with more free speech is the opposite of its suppression.