WikiPedia thoughts:

[wolven7]

Brought on by an editorial, here: Wiki Revolution.

To which I say that people are jerks. People will lie and give false information, simply because it amuses them to do so. People will do what they can to see people fail, where they have failed.

People are basically good natured and intelligent, but they are scared. They don't know how to stand up for themselves against jerks, and so bad things happen to them.

WikiPedia is a place where people with various levels of expertise and specialisation can add in their experiements and found facts, often those that are not known to many in the "foreground" of the field.

By way of a lot of what I'm hearing, an upstart Einstein wouldn't be allowed to post understandings and experiments. Imagine what sources we lose.

That "Eternal vigilance is the price we pay for freedom" should not be seen as a rallying cry to war, but an understanding that, if we want to keep something open, honest, and available, we're going to have to erase what the jerks have done, to allow room for the actual scholarship.

Comments

yeah, what you said.

[momentai.livejournal.com]

"I agre that is quite silly to limit the number of people who can post to Wikipedia. All people have information to pass on about many subjects and Wikipedia offers a great service to the world by allowing us to do so. Everyone may not hold a specific degree, but we all have experience in some subject that is just as valid as a so called professional's or graduate's.

To limit the number of people who can post entries is absurd and borders on censorship and class discrimination. Just because there are fools in our ranks is no reason to institute draconian rules.

A simple solution would be a combination of the rating system already suggested and a FREE registration process. Anyone who wants to contribute information must register with the site and prove that they are an individual. This can be done with a credit card number, like many sites now do.

This way, anyone reading the site can identify the username of the contributor and report them for providing false information. There would be a record of who contributes what. Taking away the annoymity of the site will remove the temptation to play pranks."

Re: yeah, what you said.

[jaerven.livejournal.com]

Two objections and one opinion:

1) Credit cards are much more common in the U.S. than in quite a few European countries and for instance in Germany there has been loads of difficulties instituting age verification systems. Given that persons who edit Wikipedia might be more removed from the main stream this might be even more difficult.

2) Taking away the anonymity also means that people might think twice before posting dissident opinions. I am working indirectly for one of the German federal states and quite a few takes on historical events I've posted would actually violate the oath I signed when taking this position.

Opinion: somehow I believe that they will go through with this, it will lead to a collapse of the entire system and then in the next "edition" there will be a better solution.

Re: yeah, what you said.

[momentai.livejournal.com]

A credit card is simply one way to identify someone. There are other methods that can be utilized online and my intent was not that this information be preserved. It is simply a way to verify that someone exists and to be used as leverage agaisnt any possible tomfoolery.

The main points are being registered in a way that prevents a single person from having multiple screen names and for each user to have a viewable record of what they have contributed. Furthermore, people should not be allowed to contribute w/o explaining where they get their information. A short statement referring to why you are editing an article and where you got your information from should be included in a link for each user's post.

There just needs to be an efficeint method to keep track of what goes on, have that record viewed by other registered users, and to keep everyone accountable.

As to the point of being afraid to post dissident information, that's a personal problem that the person would need to deal with on their own. Besides, Wikipedia is not a place for random political discussion or philosogizing, but a warehouse of verifiable facts. People should not use it to expound on their opinions about a certain government's policy or whether or not historical events happened as they have been reported. If they can't or won't provide sources for their information thatn that information is not very useful.

Re: yeah, what you said.

[jaerven.livejournal.com]

Agreed that credit cards don't need to be the final solution. But I believe that it is pretty difficult to make sure that a person has exactly one identity for any web-service. Granted, the casual moron would probably not go through any lengths to manipulate the system.

As to what I called dissident information: especially if it comes to historical facts (but also to pharma-products for instance) there are different ways of presenting it. Which might be overly positive or negative and which might agree with a "party line" of some way.

I do think that enforcing the posting of reference information, the motivation for expanding on it, and the track record are good ideas, that basically mean that the current wiki-system would just have to be tightened a bit. I still think that making sure that there's just one identity will be the problematic part.

Re: yeah, what you said.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

It's a good plan, but the people involved would be often loathe to identify themselves, as their so-doing would possibly get them in trouble. See below.

Off Topic... oops

[hametsunosaturn.livejournal.com]

Hey Damien~! I found your lj through Austin's.
This is Shelly. I'm-a add you.

Re: Off Topic... oops

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Hey Shelly, I'm gonna add you back. *nods*

Re: Off Topic... oops

[hametsunosaturn.livejournal.com]

Yay. :)

Re: Off Topic... oops

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Yay indeed. See you at campus.

[unknownbinaries.livejournal.com]

I stand by that the majority of people, or the majority of wills will keep it to task.

It's Information. People want it to be accurate, no? It's what it's for. The sticklers will keep at it while the jerks will get edited out, give up, and go fuck around on forums or something.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

I still say there will always be trolls and fuckups, but that that is all the more reason to keep it open to people who know what the fuck they're talking about.