Why Wikipedia is Different

Wikipedia explicitly says ‘I’m not trustworthy’, but I think lots of people assume that the end goal of wikipedia is still trustworthiness, and that the mechanism for reaching that end goal is by a process which (among other things) eliminates blatant liars. Here, the process is demonstrably failing to eliminate a blatant liar; that reduces my faith in the process, not just the end result.

[I'm still not sure how I feel about this overall, but my gut sense is that the reaction to this by Jimbo and other wikipedia regulars suggests a very troubling relativism, and that the hegelian process behind the output is not nearly as robust as most of us would like to think.]

Wikipedia explicitly says ‘I’m not trustworthy’, but I think lots of people assume that the end goal of wikipedia is still trustworthiness, and that the mechanism for reaching that end goal is by a process which (among other things) eliminates blatant liars. Here, the process is demonstrably failing to eliminate a blatant liar; that reduces my faith in the process, not just the end result.

[I'm still not sure how I feel about this overall, but my gut sense is that the reaction to this by Jimbo and other wikipedia regulars suggests a very troubling relativism, and that the hegelian process behind the output is not nearly as robust as most of us would like to think.]

Or to put it another way: I accept that frauds and liars are a tolerable part of economic free markets, because I tend to believe that there are other mechanisms which correct the situation when there are frauds and liars. I have held the same belief about wikipedia- that there are certainly trolls, frauds, and liars, but that other processes exist which keep them in check, making the overall output of tolerable quality. This situation makes me doubt those processes work. The gap between ‘there are serious, congenital liars who edit wikipedia’ (duh) and ‘there are serious, congenital liars who are at the highest level of wikipedia’s management’ feels like (is?) a big one in terms of both the process and the outcome of the process.

Or to put it another way: I accept that frauds and liars are a tolerable part of economic free markets, because I tend to believe that there are other mechanisms which correct the situation when there are frauds and liars. I have held the same belief about wikipedia- that there are certainly trolls, frauds, and liars, but that other processes exist which keep them in check, making the overall output of tolerable quality. This situation makes me doubt those processes work. The gap between ‘there are serious, congenital liars who edit wikipedia’ (duh) and ‘there are serious, congenital liars who are at the highest level of wikipedia’s management’ feels like (is?) a big one in terms of both the process and the outcome of the process.

FYI:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060731fa_fact

EDITORS’ NOTE:

The July 31, 2006, piece on Wikipedia, “Know It All,” by Stacy Schiff, contained an interview with a Wikipedia site administrator and contributor called Essjay, whose responsibilities included handling disagreements about the accuracy of the site’s articles and taking action against users who violate site policy. He was described in the piece as “a tenured professor of religion at a private university” with “a Ph.D. in theology and a degree in canon law.”

Essjay was recommended to Ms. Schiff as a source by a member of Wikipedia’s management team because of his respected position within the Wikipedia community. He was willing to describe his work as a Wikipedia administrator but would not identify himself other than by confirming the biographical details that appeared on his user page. At the time of publication, neither we nor Wikipedia knew Essjay’s real name. Essjay’s entire Wikipedia life was conducted with only a user name; anonymity is common for Wikipedia administrators and contributors, and he says that he feared personal retribution from those he had ruled against online. Essjay now says that his real name is Ryan Jordan, that he is twenty-four and holds no advanced degrees, and that he has never taught. He was recently hired by Wikia — a for-profit company affiliated with Wikipedia — as a “community manager”; he continues to hold his Wikipedia positions. He did not answer a message we sent to him; Jimmy Wales, the co-founder of Wikia and of Wikipedia, said of Essjay’s invented persona, “I regard it as a pseudonym and I don’t really have a problem with it.”

FYI:

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/…

EDITORS’ NOTE:

The July 31, 2006, piece on Wikipedia, “Know It All,” by Stacy
Schiff, contained an interview with a Wikipedia site administrator
and contributor called Essjay, whose responsibilities included
handling disagreements about the accuracy of the site’s articles and
taking action against users who violate site policy. He was described
in the piece as “a tenured professor of religion at a private
university” with “a Ph.D. in theology and a degree in canon law.”

Essjay was recommended to Ms. Schiff as a source by a member of
Wikipedia’s management team because of his respected position within
the Wikipedia community. He was willing to describe his work as a
Wikipedia administrator but would not identify himself other than by
confirming the biographical details that appeared on his user
page. At the time of publication, neither we nor Wikipedia knew
Essjay’s real name. Essjay’s entire Wikipedia life was conducted with
only a user name; anonymity is common for Wikipedia administrators
and contributors, and he says that he feared personal retribution
from those he had ruled against online. Essjay now says that his real
name is Ryan Jordan, that he is twenty-four and holds no advanced
degrees, and that he has never taught. He was recently hired by
Wikia — a for-profit company affiliated with Wikipedia — as a
“community manager”; he continues to hold his Wikipedia positions. He
did not answer a message we sent to him; Jimmy Wales, the co-founder
of Wikia and of Wikipedia, said of Essjay’s invented persona, “I
regard it as a pseudonym and I don’t really have a problem with it.”

Perhaps I commented too brusquely earlier, without considering you might not have all the facts:

“But given that Wikipedia has never claimed to vouch for the credibility of its contributors …”

Per above, that is in error – the Wikipedia management team specifically vouched for the credibility of this contributor. And Jimmy Wales specifically rewarded this contributor with an appointment to a Wikipedia high internal governing post.

“So even if some of the people who run Wikipedia are liars, that isn’t relevant in judging its reliability as a reference work”

This is false if they seek to bolster its credibility via deception http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay/Letter

“I am an administrator of the online encyclopedia project Wikipedia. I am also a tenured professor of theology; feel free to have a look at my Wikipedia userpage (linked below) to gain an idea of my background and credentials.”

Those credentials were a lie. But there is a reason for the lie, which is sadly what gives the lie to your sentence above – it was a fabricated endorsement.

Perhaps I commented too brusquely earlier, without considering you might not have all the facts:

“But given that Wikipedia has never claimed to vouch for the credibility of its contributors …”

Per above, that is in error – the Wikipedia management team specifically vouched for the credibility of this contributor. And Jimmy Wales specifically rewarded this contributor with an appointment to a Wikipedia high internal governing post.

“So even if some of the people who run Wikipedia are liars, that isn’t relevant in judging its reliability as a reference work”

This is false if they seek to bolster its credibility via deception
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay/Letter

“I am an administrator of the online encyclopedia project Wikipedia. I
am also a tenured professor of theology; feel free to have a look at
my Wikipedia userpage (linked below) to gain an idea of my background and credentials.”

Those credentials were a lie. But there is a reason for the lie, which is sadly what gives the lie to your sentence above – it was a fabricated endorsement.

[Posted again without the live hyperlink, to get through moderation]

Perhaps I commented too brusquely earlier, without considering you might not have all the facts:

“But given that Wikipedia has never claimed to vouch for the credibility of its contributors …”

Per above, that is in error – the Wikipedia management team specifically vouched for the credibility of this contributor. And Jimmy Wales specifically rewarded this contributor with an appointment to a Wikipedia high internal governing post.

“So even if some of the people who run Wikipedia are liars, that isn’t relevant in judging its reliability as a reference work”

This is false if they seek to bolster its credibility via deception http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay/Letter

“I am an administrator of the online encyclopedia project Wikipedia. I am also a tenured professor of theology; feel free to have a look at my Wikipedia userpage (linked below) to gain an idea of my background and credentials.”

Those credentials were a lie. But there is a reason for the lie, which is sadly what gives the lie to your sentence above – it was a fabricated endorsement.

[Posted again without the live hyperlink, to get through moderation]

Perhaps I commented too brusquely earlier, without considering you might not have all the facts:

“But given that Wikipedia has never claimed to vouch for the credibility of its contributors …”

Per above, that is in error – the Wikipedia management team specifically vouched for the credibility of this contributor. And Jimmy Wales specifically rewarded this contributor with an appointment to a Wikipedia high internal governing post.

“So even if some of the people who run Wikipedia are liars, that isn’t relevant in judging its reliability as a reference work”

This is false if they seek to bolster its credibility via deception
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Essjay/Letter

“I am an administrator of the online encyclopedia project Wikipedia. I
am also a tenured professor of theology; feel free to have a look at
my Wikipedia userpage (linked below) to gain an idea of my background and credentials.”

Those credentials were a lie. But there is a reason for the lie, which is sadly what gives the lie to your sentence above – it was a fabricated endorsement.

The mechanism for reaching that end goal is by a process which (among other things) eliminates blatant liars.

I don’t think that’s quite right. The process is designed to eliminate lies, not liars per se. They do this by requiring all statements in Wikipedia be based on publicly available sources, so that anyone can independently verify them if they’re so inclined.

The issue would be a lot more serious if a senior Wikipedia editor were caught introducing biases into Wikipedia articles themselves. (If, for example, they took bribes from companies to make sure the Wikipedia page on their company was favorable) But there’s been no allegation that Jordan did anything of the sort, and it seems to me that Wikipedia’s peer review process would be more likely to catch those sorts of errors. It’s hardly an indictment of Wikipedia’s peer review process that no one caught the false statements on Jordan’s profile page—a page that’s not subject to Wikipedia’s peer review process.

The mechanism for reaching that end goal is by a process which (among other things) eliminates blatant liars.

I don’t think that’s quite right. The process is designed to eliminate lies, not liars per se. They do this by requiring all statements in Wikipedia be based on publicly available sources, so that anyone can independently verify them if they’re so inclined.

The issue would be a lot more serious if a senior Wikipedia editor were caught introducing biases into Wikipedia articles themselves. (If, for example, they took bribes from companies to make sure the Wikipedia page on their company was favorable) But there’s been no allegation that Jordan did anything of the sort, and it seems to me that Wikipedia’s peer review process would be more likely to catch those sorts of errors. It’s hardly an indictment of Wikipedia’s peer review process that no one caught the false statements on Jordan’s profile page—a page that’s not subject to Wikipedia’s peer review process.

The Wikipedia management team specifically vouched for the credibility of this contributor.

Seth, they referred him because of his “respected position within the Wikipedia community.” That is, they were vouching for the work he’d done as a Wikipedia editor, they weren’t claiming to have done a background check on his persona outside of Wikipedia.

So I’m curious, what do you think Wikipedia should have done differently here? Should they hire private investigators to investigate whether some of their editors are misrepresenting their identities? What would that accomplish?

The Wikipedia management team specifically vouched for the credibility of this contributor.

Seth, they referred him because of his “respected position within
the Wikipedia community.” That is, they were vouching for the work he’d done as a Wikipedia editor, they weren’t claiming to have done a background check on his persona outside of Wikipedia.

So I’m curious, what do you think Wikipedia should have done differently here? Should they hire private investigators to investigate whether some of their editors are misrepresenting their identities? What would that accomplish?

It is an indictment of Wikipedia’s management that they appointed him to a position of high trust with full knowledge of the fraud. And have hired him (though the initial decision seems to have been when they didn’t know). And have minimized his actions and defended him.

Now, one can say, abstractly, that management rewarding a liar who promoted the credibility of Wikipieda with false credentials should absolutely not be taken to reflect poorly on Wikipedia as an ideal Platonic endeavor.

But c’mon, a whole industry of liberal-media-bias ranting has been built on far, far, less.

I think the factual part you may be missing is that he’s one of the people who rules on who is a bad Wikipedian and will be blocked from edits to the extent possible (“ArbCom”) – and he was appointed to that position by Jimmy Wales even after Wales knew of the fraud!

It is an indictment of Wikipedia’s management that they appointed him to a position of high trust with full knowledge of the fraud. And have hired him (though the initial decision seems to have been when they didn’t know). And have minimized his actions and defended him.

Now, one can say, abstractly, that management rewarding a liar who promoted the credibility of Wikipieda with false credentials should absolutely not be taken to reflect poorly on Wikipedia as an ideal Platonic endeavor.

But c’mon, a whole industry of liberal-media-bias ranting has been built on far, far, less.

I think the factual part you may be missing is that he’s one of the people who rules on who is a bad Wikipedian and will be blocked from edits to the extent possible (“ArbCom”) – and he was appointed to that position by Jimmy Wales even after Wales knew of the fraud!

At a minimum, I think they should

1) Condemn his fraudulent actions

2) Remove him from his positions of trust in Wikipedia administration.

That doesn’t seem to me to be out of line.

Neither of which they’ll do, for evident reasons.

At a minimum, I think they should

1) Condemn his fraudulent actions

2) Remove him from his positions of trust in Wikipedia administration.

That doesn’t seem to me to be out of line.

Neither of which they’ll do, for evident reasons.

So I’m supposed to believe that wikipedia editors who are apparently completely comfortable with lies made to the media are somehow going to be staunchly anti-lies when those lies are made in wikipedia? I guess I just don’t really buy that.

I’m not much of a moral absolutist, but you’re either OK with publicly told lies, or you’re not OK with publicly told lies. It seems like Wikipedia is choosing to be OK with publicly told lies. Whether that takes the form of condoning lies, or merely condoning the liars who told them, feels like semantic quibbling to me.

[It is worth noting that as a general principle, Wikipedia doesn't just revert false edits (lies); they ban those who make repeated false edits (liars). They institutionally acknowledge that people are bad, not just facts, so your lie/liar distinction, Tim, while rhetorically and abstractly useful, isn't one that wikipedia generally seems to make.]

So I’m supposed to believe that wikipedia editors who are apparently completely comfortable with lies made to the media are somehow going to be staunchly anti-lies when those lies are made in wikipedia? I guess I just don’t really buy that.

I’m not much of a moral absolutist, but you’re either OK with publicly told lies, or you’re not OK with publicly told lies. It seems like Wikipedia is choosing to be OK with publicly told lies. Whether that takes the form of condoning lies, or merely condoning the liars who told them, feels like semantic quibbling to me.

[It is worth noting that as a general principle, Wikipedia doesn't just revert false edits (lies); they ban those who make repeated false edits (liars). They institutionally acknowledge that people are bad, not just facts, so your lie/liar distinction, Tim, while rhetorically and abstractly useful, isn't one that wikipedia generally seems to make.]

Here’s the refernce for the appointment:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2007-February/063809.html

“I hereby appoint Mackensen and EssJay to the Arbitration committee. After consulting with the existing arbitration committee and others, I decided to appoint Mackensen to Dominic’s seat (Dominic is retiring), and EssJay to an expansion seat in the shortest tranche.

–Jimbo”

This is WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE of the fraud.

Here’s the refernce for the appointment:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2…

“I hereby appoint Mackensen and EssJay to the Arbitration committee.
After consulting with the existing arbitration committee and others, I
decided to appoint Mackensen to Dominic’s seat (Dominic is retiring),
and EssJay to an expansion seat in the shortest tranche.

–Jimbo”

This is WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE of the fraud.

(And to be clear, after the mini-exchange above that took place while writing my last comment: I don’t think much could have been/should have been done prior to the exposure of the lie by third parties. But once exposed, it seems almost self-evident that keeping him as an editor is a bad idea. The current position of wikipedia on this is hard to understand as anything other than an implicit statement that volume of editorial contribution is more important than truth-seeking.)

(And to be clear, after the mini-exchange above that took place while writing my last comment: I don’t think much could have been/should have been done prior to the exposure of the lie by third parties. But once exposed, it seems almost self-evident that keeping him as an editor is a bad idea. The current position of wikipedia on this is hard to understand as anything other than an implicit statement that volume of editorial contribution is more important than truth-seeking.)

Well look, I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with criticizing the Wikipedia administration for poor management decisions. Maybe Jimmy Wales is a fraud, a liar, and a lousy manager.

My point, as I said in my original post, when judging the accuracy of the content, “the credibility of any one person—including Jimmy Wales—is almost completely irrelevant, because Wikipedia’s editing process does not rely on any individual’s judgment or expertise.”

It’s just a non sequitur to say that because Jordan or Wales is unreliable, therefore Wikipedia must also be unreliable.

Well look, I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with criticizing the Wikipedia administration for poor management decisions. Maybe Jimmy Wales is a fraud, a liar, and a lousy manager.

My point, as I said in my original post, when judging the accuracy of the content, “the credibility of any one person—including Jimmy Wales—is almost completely irrelevant, because Wikipedia’s editing process does not rely on any individual’s judgment or expertise.”

It’s just a non sequitur to say that because Jordan or Wales is unreliable, therefore Wikipedia must also be unreliable.

By the way, the train wreck that is his user page is an interesting read; there appear to be a fair number of wikipedians who are concerned about the issue and the impact on trust between wikipedians.

[It also points out that the lies weren't just isolated statements that existed only on his user page, Tim; it appears that he used the false information to gain leverage over others and encourage them to change or not change information in Wikipedia itself.]

By the way, the train wreck that is his user page is an interesting read; there appear to be a fair number of wikipedians who are concerned about the issue and the impact on trust between wikipedians.

[It also points out that the lies weren't just isolated statements that existed only on his user page, Tim; it appears that he used the false information to gain leverage over others and encourage them to change or not change information in Wikipedia itself.]

Particularly worth reading is this comment, which details how he used his supposed status as a scholar and academic to influence content.

Particularly worth reading is this comment, which details how he used his supposed status as a scholar and academic to influence content.

“… because Wikipedia’s editing process does not rely on any individual’s judgment or expertise.”"

This isn’t really true. In fact, it’s particularly false in exactly the way his position is most harmful. “Peer review” here is both self-selected and subject to administrative fiat – and Essjay is still one of the people empowered to throw editors out of Wikipedia for bad conduct (which is highly, highly, ironic …)

What you’re doing is a kind of fallacy of atomization – you’re abstracting the process away from any implementation problems, then assuming the conclusion by saying liars don’t matter since the process has been abstracted away.

The scandal here is Wikipedia’s management tolerance, and rewarding with office, of DECEPTION IN PROMOTING WIKIPEDIA. That was my point in my first comment. The scandal’s implications cast a cloud over Wikipedia’s process, since it casts into question other endorsements – what else was fabricated? This is particularly pertinant since a very strong message has been sent that if you fake positive things about Wikipedia to the media, you’ll get rewarded.

“… because Wikipedia’s editing process does not rely on any individual’s judgment or expertise.”"

This isn’t really true. In fact, it’s particularly false in exactly the way his position is most harmful. “Peer review” here is both self-selected and subject to administrative fiat – and Essjay is still one of the people empowered to throw editors out of Wikipedia for bad conduct (which is highly, highly, ironic …)

What you’re doing is a kind of fallacy of atomization – you’re abstracting the process away from any implementation problems, then assuming the conclusion by saying liars don’t matter since the process has been abstracted away.

The scandal here is Wikipedia’s management tolerance, and rewarding with office, of DECEPTION IN PROMOTING WIKIPEDIA. That was my point in my first comment. The scandal’s implications cast a cloud over Wikipedia’s process, since it casts into question other endorsements – what else was fabricated? This is particularly pertinant since a very strong message has been sent that if you fake positive things about Wikipedia to the media, you’ll get rewarded.

Seth, I might add that you do yourself a disservice by not mentioning that many Wikipedians appear to share your view. Your blog posts make it sound as if Wikipedian is monolithically in support of Essjay remaining as an admin, which appears to not be the case at all (despite Jimbo’s position.)

Seth, I might add that you do yourself a disservice by not mentioning that many Wikipedians appear to share your view. Your blog posts make it sound as if Wikipedian is monolithically in support of Essjay remaining as an admin, which appears to not be the case at all (despite Jimbo’s position.)

Luis, sadly, that doesn’t matter. Jimbo is a majority of one.

Luis, sadly, that doesn’t matter. Jimbo is a majority of one.

Wikipedia invites criticism by trying to pass itself off as an encyclopedia. People have an expectation of accuracy and balance in encyclopedias, and there is nothing in the Wikipedia process that would actually promote that. What you actually have in Wikipedia is a readership that probably suffers from ADD and therefore can’t be bothered with real research and an editorship that sufffers from OCD and therefore can’t be bothered with balance.

The big article of faith behind the Wikipedia process is that the good people will always prevail over the bad people in any dispute over facts and balance, and I see no evidence in my experience as a Wikipedia editor to support. What happens in practice is that the editor with the highest degree of obsessiveness prevails over people who actually have lives and limited time to devote to any particular revert war. And as Wikipedia editors move in packs, it’s a practical imposibility for one or two people with a commitment to balance to prevail.

When you open up the editing process to one and all, you don’t just get more good people with good intentions, you also get more nutcases, shills, and ideologues, and there is no meta-process to ensure that the good guys always win. So sometimes they do, and sometimes they don’t.

I challenge Wikipedia fan-boys to find me even one article on a current event, political, economic, or sociological subject that doesn’t contain major errors of fact and major biases. Every one of them is the result of compromise, and some of them are downright laughable.

Bottom line: the wisdom of the crowd is BS. Crowds are only as smart as their dumbest member. That’s essentially the first law of group process, and you ignore it at your own risk.

Wikipedia invites criticism by trying to pass itself off as an encyclopedia. People have an expectation of accuracy and balance in encyclopedias, and there is nothing in the Wikipedia process that would actually promote that. What you actually have in Wikipedia is a readership that probably suffers from ADD and therefore can’t be bothered with real research and an editorship that sufffers from OCD and therefore can’t be bothered with balance.

The big article of faith behind the Wikipedia process is that the good people will always prevail over the bad people in any dispute over facts and balance, and I see no evidence in my experience as a Wikipedia editor to support. What happens in practice is that the editor with the highest degree of obsessiveness prevails over people who actually have lives and limited time to devote to any particular revert war. And as Wikipedia editors move in packs, it’s a practical imposibility for one or two people with a commitment to balance to prevail.

When you open up the editing process to one and all, you don’t just get more good people with good intentions, you also get more nutcases, shills, and ideologues, and there is no meta-process to ensure that the good guys always win. So sometimes they do, and sometimes they don’t.

I challenge Wikipedia fan-boys to find me even one article on a current event, political, economic, or sociological subject that doesn’t contain major errors of fact and major biases. Every one of them is the result of compromise, and some of them are downright laughable.

Bottom line: the wisdom of the crowd is BS. Crowds are only as smart as their dumbest member. That’s essentially the first law of group process, and you ignore it at your own risk.

You may well be right- I’m certainly not an expert on internal wikipedia power dynamics- but I stand by the basic assertion that your writing would be more credible if you distinguished Jimbo, Wikipedia, and the mass of Wikipedians, and explained what you feel the relationship between them is, instead of treating them monolithically and giving your readers the impression that all Wikipedians were lining up behind the Dear Leader. I certainly feel like I was mislead by the tone and content of your posts yesterday, and I’m glad I went to the source and read the actual discussion taking place rather than just relying on your description of it.

[Tangentially, the link I made earlier should now point here for the quickie straw-poll version of how some wikipedians feel about the issue.]

Richard: Good to know there are still fans of central planning out there. You keep life interesting.

You may well be right- I’m certainly not an expert on internal wikipedia power dynamics- but I stand by the basic assertion that your writing would be more credible if you distinguished Jimbo, Wikipedia, and the mass of Wikipedians, and explained what you feel the relationship between them is, instead of treating them monolithically and giving your readers the impression that all Wikipedians were lining up behind the Dear Leader. I certainly feel like I was mislead by the tone and content of your posts yesterday, and I’m glad I went to the source and read the actual discussion taking place rather than just relying on your description of it.

[Tangentially, the link I made earlier should now point here for the quickie straw-poll version of how some wikipedians feel about the issue.]

Richard: Good to know there are still fans of central planning out there. You keep life interesting.

I’m not a fan of central planning, Luis, I’m a fan of intelligence.

I’m not a fan of central planning, Luis, I’m a fan of intelligence.

Ah, yes, because large numbers of uncoordinated people have never demonstrated intelligence. Thanks for correcting me on that- I’ll be sure to pass it along to Smith and Hayek next time I see them.

Ah, yes, because large numbers of uncoordinated people have never demonstrated intelligence. Thanks for correcting me on that- I’ll be sure to pass it along to Smith and Hayek next time I see them.

Luis, perhaps you’re misreading my phrase “Wikipedia’s management”. I don’t mean that as a synonym for “the Wikipedia process”, but rather the very small group of people who actually wield power over it (not in it). That is, it’s not quite that Jimbo Wales is an absolute monarch, shorthand to the contrary. But for all the talk about openness, there’s a handful of people who count, and everyone else is just a volunteer (to use a polite term).

This is demonstrated by how the decision to keep Essjay was done. Jimbo just issued it. Whether he made it himself, or asked a few other people, is not really the point. It’s top-down fiat, and while I deeply sympathize with the ground-level people who are upset, that doesn’t change what happened.

Luis, perhaps you’re misreading my phrase “Wikipedia’s management”. I don’t mean that as a synonym for “the Wikipedia process”, but rather the
very small group of people who actually wield power over it (not in it). That is, it’s not quite that Jimbo Wales is an absolute monarch, shorthand to the contrary. But for all the talk about openness, there’s a handful of people who count, and everyone else is just a volunteer (to use a polite term).

This is demonstrated by how the decision to keep Essjay was done. Jimbo just issued it. Whether he made it himself, or asked a few other people, is not really the point. It’s top-down fiat, and while I deeply sympathize with the ground-level people who are upset, that doesn’t change what happened.

…large numbers of uncoordinated people have never demonstrated intelligence

Can you provide an example? I’d be especially interested in experiments in which large numbers of illiterate people (most of the world’s population can’t read) have successfully designed nuclear reactors.

…large numbers of uncoordinated people have never demonstrated intelligence

Can you provide an example? I’d be especially interested in experiments in which large numbers of illiterate people (most of the world’s population can’t read) have successfully designed nuclear reactors.

Luis and Seth are making good points here, and I’m glad to see Tim is getting concerned. There are definitely times when the “benevolent dictator” model of many big peer production projects can start to look less than benevolent. In the open-soure world, which Wikipedia is an outgrowth of, you don’t want to fork often or lightly, but there are times when it is necessary. And the GNU license guarantees that freedom to fork.

Luis and Seth are making good points here, and I’m glad to see Tim is getting concerned. There are definitely times when the “benevolent dictator” model of many big peer production projects can start to look less than benevolent. In the open-soure world, which Wikipedia is an outgrowth of, you don’t want to fork often or lightly, but there are times when it is necessary. And the GNU license guarantees that freedom to fork.

Well, Jimbo has asked Esjay to resign. Jimbo claims he didn’t have adequate information about Essjay’s transgressions until a few hours ago, but I think it’s pretty likely that his hand was forced, as Tim hoped would happen.

Obviously there are a lot of hard issues here that aren’t going to go away – expertise, credentials, fraud, deception, the “benevolent dictator” model – but I think this latest development is a point in favor of Luis and Tim’s more generous view of Wikipedia dynamics compared to Seth’s harsher view.

Well, Jimbo has asked Esjay to resign. Jimbo claims he didn’t have adequate information about Essjay’s transgressions until a few hours ago, but I think it’s pretty likely that his hand was forced, as Tim hoped would happen.

Obviously there are a lot of hard issues here that aren’t going to go away – expertise, credentials, fraud, deception, the “benevolent dictator” model – but I think this latest development is a point in favor of Luis and Tim’s more generous view of Wikipedia dynamics compared to Seth’s harsher view.

Doug: I freely admit I have grown bitter and cynical.

About this latest development, see my most recent post on Wikipedia’s Value System

Doug: I freely admit I have grown bitter and cynical.

About this latest development, see my most recent post on Wikipedia’s Value System

Comment from an earlier post on Hayek and wikipedia:

Markets work because prices coordinate the decentralized activities. Wikipedia, and similar “wisdom of crowds” activities that have no such coordinating system, are just unreliable jumbles.

Comment from an earlier post on Hayek and wikipedia:

Markets work because prices coordinate the decentralized activities. Wikipedia, and similar “wisdom of crowds” activities that have no such coordinating system, are just unreliable jumbles.