Vanilla is a product of Lussumo:Documentation and Support.
1 to 10 of 10
Controversy has erupted among the encyclopedia's core contributors, after a rogue editor revealed that the site's top administrators are using a secret insider mailing list to crackdown on perceived threats to their power.Many suspected that such a list was in use, as the Wikipedia "ruling clique" grew increasingly concerned with banning editors for the most petty of reasons. But now that the list's existence is confirmed, the rank and file are on the verge of revolt.Revealed after an uber-admin called "Durova" used it in an attempt to enforce the quixotic ban of a longtime contributor, this secret mailing list seems to undermine the site's famously egalitarian ethos. At the very least, the list allows the ruling clique to push its agenda without scrutiny from the community at large. But clearly, it has also been used to silence the voice of at least one person who was merely trying to improve the encyclopedia's content.
Eventually things will sort themselves out. But the question of whether wikipedia, or any system like it, can survive the inevitable clash of personality and style inherent in group settings is for me an unanswerable one. Either someone has to step in and take charge or enough people have to agree on a set of rules and guidelines on how to comittee-run it
Because they're not deemed to be high enough knowledge.
@turingWell, whether or not Wikipedia itself survives, there are definitely going to be Wikipedia-like things playing a very important role in the future of the web. So at the very least, the legacy of Wikipedia will be as a test bed showing us what the emergent properties of a massive wiki-based system are. It shows us what happens when you give people a system where they're forced to make their own rules and politics. There's a lot to be learned from it. I certainly hope we're learning from it, as massive collaboration on the Wikipedia scale is too useful an idea to not be used extensively in the future.
@screaming meatOptions are as joe stated: Either this anarcho-utopian information exchange develops standardized rules, which means losing that 'something' that has worked so well untill recently, or it collapses into self-destruction. Reading your post makes me look at it like some kind of internet simulation of a small commune that has gotten out of hand. I will certainly have to get onto this...
@turingOn the one hand, given how cheap and easy data storage and processing on a massive scale is becoming, why not include everything? Sure, I don't give a shit about Dragonball Z, let alone the arcane minutia of its lore, but somebody does, and it's not as if it's stealing page space from more important (whatever that might mean) articles. Wikipedia can effectively hold as much data as you can throw at it.
@turingOn the other hand, can an information source remain coherent with that much cruft? Or does it turn into, as Jason Scott so poetically puts it in the talk I linked to in the top post, "a giant Katamari Damacy-like ball of shit rolling across the Internet"?
In early September, the Wikipedia inner circle banned edits from 1,000 homes and one massive online retailer in an attempt to suppress the voice of one man.His name is Judd Bagley, and when the ban came down, he hadn't edited Wikipedia in over a year. He was merely writing about the site, from his own domain. The Wikipedia elite blacklisted Judd Bagley because he accused them of using their powers to hijack reality.Talk of Wikipedia admins trying to seize "the truth" may sound familiar. Famously, comedian Stephen Colbert has poked more than a few holes in the site's commitment to democratic consensus, making fun of its efforts to clamp down on edits deemed less than factual. And the web is still abuzz over the secret mailing list used by top administrators to silence inconvenient voices.But what happens when, say, the Wikipedia elite decides to take a topic as weighty as the health of US financial markets under its control without informing the public of its decision?
The first thing I learned about wiki is to never fully trust it. When using wiki for research, I have a protocol I follow.1. Click on the citations and find out where the author is getting their information from. Discard those that are not credible sources.2. Disregard phrases that show opinion and not facts.3. Check the external links for better source