- Messages
- 916
Oh, looks like it got removed. https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/comments/gb8air/maybe_we_should_just_consider_wikipedia_to_be_a/
Maybe we should just consider Wikipedia to be a public utility at this point
Wikimedia is a really inefficient organization, probably about as inefficient as your local power or telephone company, if not more so. We haven't seen any major improvements to MediaWiki in quite awhile. In terms of user experience, it still feels like software out of the early 2000s (and that's being nice; some people say it feels like software out of the 1990s).
So are we really benefiting from their being a "private organization" that has the right to discriminate? It's not like they're on the cutting edge of innovation. They're mostly cushioned from market pressures by their nonprofit status, which was done purposefully to make them more independent, but has also eliminated meaningful incentives to make improvements in service.
Also, a lot of their discrimination is invidious. For example, to run for the board, one of the requirements is that you need to have not been convicted of a serious crime. In the public sector, that would be frowned upon; the U.S. Constitution, for instance, says that felons are allowed to be Congressmen.
I think once your company grows to a certain size and level of dominance, you pretty much have a responsibility to serve everyone. Back when I was involved in restorative justice, the loss prevention officers at Walmart used to say that when they busted a kid for shoplifting, they would ban him from Walmart for a year; and if they busted an adult for shoplifting, they would ban him permanently. But this is not really a reasonable sanction, given how important it is to be able to shop at Walmart, and probably most of these people evaded the ban when opportunities arose (e.g. if they went to some other Walmart where the LP officer didn't know them).
Wikipedia has a policy of banning Nazis. Where else are Nazis supposed to go, though, besides Wikipedia, if they want to participate in a comprehensive encyclopedia? Infogalactic isn't that great of a fork. WP:TENDENTIOUS says:
Isn't it interesting that they say it's disruptive because of the message it sends, rather than because of its being a misuse of resources, per WP:NOTWEBHOST? They seem to be acknowledging the behavior they're referring to doesn't actually break any rules; otherwise, they'd be using the rationale that's in a rule.
Bottom line is, you can't just refuse service to people you don't like, once you reach a certain scale. The reason is, they're simply not going to put up with it, because they have nowhere else to go, so therefore by default their only option is to evade the ban. And because your organization is so big, you're not going to be able to keep track of who's evading the bans, since they can just hide in the crowd.
Wikimedia has, what, about 942 projects? How are you going to keep someone off of all of them? Wikimedia doesn't even have staff on hand who know all those languages; not even common European languages like French; we saw that in the ClassicCardinal case.
All that has to happen is that some project decides to give a globally banned user shelter, like what happened with Russavia, and then the WMF has to spend a lot of staff time playing whack-a-mole because the local admins and checkusers aren't going to do it for them. And that was on Commons, an English-speaking project, where WMF had more of an advantage in trying to control the place since they have plenty of English-speaking people ready to take over if they want to put in new leadership. They don't have that option with projects where English isn't the language used.
In the past, this was a non-issue, because most English speakers weren't going to just learn another language to evade a ban. But, this is 2020, when the resources are actually available by which one could do that. We have Progress with Lawless French, we have Linguee, we have online tutors. If you put serious effort into it, it's really not that hard to learn certain languages, but WMF is run by San Francisco-based monolinguists. The only language they know how to speak is SJW.
There are also a million different mobile devices, and places that offer free wi-fi, and VPNs, etc. Someone wanting to create articles can just draft them offline, on his localhost's wiki, and then post them from somewhere. Or he can find someone to post them on his behalf. This is why the fight to stop paid editing is also hopeless; the rule is unenforceable and all they can do is slow it down by putting a few extra barriers in the way (that also get in the way of "legitimate" users).
WMF needs to realize what they're up against. They're dealing with hyperautistic obsessive-compulsive neetcels, essentially, who have nothing to do besides edit Wikipedia, so anyone expecting that a ban is going to deter them and make them go away and do something else is barking up the wrong tree. It won't happen.
Consider the characteristics of a Wikipedian, that enabled him to grow and survive in that hostile environment. He had to be tenacious and resourceful enough to learn wikitext and deal with a lot of annoying bureaucratic fucks. Do you expect he's suddenly going to somehow lose all that gumption when he gets banned? Not likely.
The more hardcore Wikipedians also tend to be pretty anti-authoritarian. That's why they're editing Wikipedia all day instead of using their talents at a paying job. They don't want to have to answer to a boss, or a customer; they'd rather be exploring whatever area of knowledge they find interesting at any given moment, and using Wikipedia as a place to organize and share that research, and interconnect it with other knowledge. There's not really another comprehensive outlet like that available, and the personality trait that makes one want to do that doesn't just go away.
An anti-authoritarian guy is not going to suddenly say, "Oh, because some bureaucratic fuck on Wikipedia says not to edit, I'm not going to edit." We know that these admins are not the best of the best Wikipedians; they're just people who were good at obtaining power in a Machiavellian way. Spergs and cynics are a different breed from these manipulators. We know that we're superior to them, and that there's no moral reason why we have to respect them.
Wikimedia says that global bans are permanent, non-negotiable, and unappealable. Yeah, well, so is the turboneet's determination to keep editing, any bans notwithstanding. They think, "Oh, we'll just block him and delete his articles and he'll give up in frustration." Nope. Those articles can be saved and reposted under some different title. E.g., you delete an article called "French prepositions" that was posted by some banned user, and next thing you know, it's posted as "Prepositions (French)" or "Prepositions in French grammar" or something of the like, because he copypasted the wikitext into his email account before the page got deleted and now he can just copypaste it right back into Wikipedia.
Or, he can just translate it into another language and post it into a different language wiki. Wikiversity or Wikibooks are other possibilities, if the content can be labelled a "resource" or part of a book. Or, he can post it one of these small, third-party wikis where at least the content can survive and show up in Google results.
Or, even if he didn't save it, if it was saved in the Google cache, he can get it from there; or even if he simply remembers that there was enough research out there to write a decent article, that means it can be written again. Once you've researched a topic once, you probably remember where some of your sources were. But even if you're NOT going to write or post the article again, just writing it once probably taught you a lot about the subject, and led you into some other interesting tangentially-related subjects, that you can write about next time.
So, even if your work got deleted, who really cares? It's a loss to the public, and it may be annoying in those cases where you try to refresh your memory about what you researched earlier and it's not there anymore; but in reality, if you hadn't been editing Wikipedia, you might have had nothing else to do anyway besides beat Final Fantasy for like the 12th time. Also, when admins delete good work, it makes them look like assholes, to those few who saw it before it got deleted. G5 is controversial for a reason, and always has been.
It's like any other area of stupid deletion, like hemovanadin-type scenarios, which happen all the time. Someone who thinks logically about the situation might put two and two together and realize, "Hmm, if there are stupid deletions, maybe there are stupid bans too?" Definitely there are unexplained bans, like when Wikimedia or the ArbCom make decisions in private and say that the situation is to be discussed by email only. If Wikimedia were a public entity, there would be a right to a public trial, and freedom of information, and all that. Those used to be goals that Wikimedia voluntarily adhered to; but now they cite privacy as a reason why they need to keep evidence and reasoning secret.
Nah, that's not what it's about; it's about avoiding scrutiny and accountability. It's about being able to censor without being called out for censorship. It's about public relations; making themselves LOOK unbiased. Anyway, we know what's really going on, and we're not going to accept it.
It's Irresistible Force vs. Immovable Object, and this fight is apparently going to go all 10 rounds and then some before anyone decides to tap out, so might as well settle in, because this isn't going to be over any time soon.
Maybe we should just consider Wikipedia to be a public utility at this point
Wikimedia is a really inefficient organization, probably about as inefficient as your local power or telephone company, if not more so. We haven't seen any major improvements to MediaWiki in quite awhile. In terms of user experience, it still feels like software out of the early 2000s (and that's being nice; some people say it feels like software out of the 1990s).
So are we really benefiting from their being a "private organization" that has the right to discriminate? It's not like they're on the cutting edge of innovation. They're mostly cushioned from market pressures by their nonprofit status, which was done purposefully to make them more independent, but has also eliminated meaningful incentives to make improvements in service.
Also, a lot of their discrimination is invidious. For example, to run for the board, one of the requirements is that you need to have not been convicted of a serious crime. In the public sector, that would be frowned upon; the U.S. Constitution, for instance, says that felons are allowed to be Congressmen.
I think once your company grows to a certain size and level of dominance, you pretty much have a responsibility to serve everyone. Back when I was involved in restorative justice, the loss prevention officers at Walmart used to say that when they busted a kid for shoplifting, they would ban him from Walmart for a year; and if they busted an adult for shoplifting, they would ban him permanently. But this is not really a reasonable sanction, given how important it is to be able to shop at Walmart, and probably most of these people evaded the ban when opportunities arose (e.g. if they went to some other Walmart where the LP officer didn't know them).
Wikipedia has a policy of banning Nazis. Where else are Nazis supposed to go, though, besides Wikipedia, if they want to participate in a comprehensive encyclopedia? Infogalactic isn't that great of a fork. WP:TENDENTIOUS says:
It is important to recognize that everybody has bias. Few people will edit subjects in which they have no interest. Bias is not in and of itself a problem in editors, only in articles. Problems arise when editors see their own bias as neutral, and especially when they assume that any resistance to their edits is founded in bias towards an opposing point of view. The perception that “he who is not for me is against me” is contrary to Wikipedia’s assume good faith guideline: always allow for the possibility that you are indeed wrong, and remember that attributing motives to fellow editors is inconsiderate.
Yeah, but WP:BLOCKNAZIS says, "Declaring oneself to be a racist or using Wikipedia as a webhost to show racist or Nazi imagery and propaganda or mythologizing crosses the line into disruptive editing because it is telling a significant portion of our readers and editors that they shouldn't exist."Isn't it interesting that they say it's disruptive because of the message it sends, rather than because of its being a misuse of resources, per WP:NOTWEBHOST? They seem to be acknowledging the behavior they're referring to doesn't actually break any rules; otherwise, they'd be using the rationale that's in a rule.
Bottom line is, you can't just refuse service to people you don't like, once you reach a certain scale. The reason is, they're simply not going to put up with it, because they have nowhere else to go, so therefore by default their only option is to evade the ban. And because your organization is so big, you're not going to be able to keep track of who's evading the bans, since they can just hide in the crowd.
Wikimedia has, what, about 942 projects? How are you going to keep someone off of all of them? Wikimedia doesn't even have staff on hand who know all those languages; not even common European languages like French; we saw that in the ClassicCardinal case.
All that has to happen is that some project decides to give a globally banned user shelter, like what happened with Russavia, and then the WMF has to spend a lot of staff time playing whack-a-mole because the local admins and checkusers aren't going to do it for them. And that was on Commons, an English-speaking project, where WMF had more of an advantage in trying to control the place since they have plenty of English-speaking people ready to take over if they want to put in new leadership. They don't have that option with projects where English isn't the language used.
In the past, this was a non-issue, because most English speakers weren't going to just learn another language to evade a ban. But, this is 2020, when the resources are actually available by which one could do that. We have Progress with Lawless French, we have Linguee, we have online tutors. If you put serious effort into it, it's really not that hard to learn certain languages, but WMF is run by San Francisco-based monolinguists. The only language they know how to speak is SJW.
There are also a million different mobile devices, and places that offer free wi-fi, and VPNs, etc. Someone wanting to create articles can just draft them offline, on his localhost's wiki, and then post them from somewhere. Or he can find someone to post them on his behalf. This is why the fight to stop paid editing is also hopeless; the rule is unenforceable and all they can do is slow it down by putting a few extra barriers in the way (that also get in the way of "legitimate" users).
WMF needs to realize what they're up against. They're dealing with hyperautistic obsessive-compulsive neetcels, essentially, who have nothing to do besides edit Wikipedia, so anyone expecting that a ban is going to deter them and make them go away and do something else is barking up the wrong tree. It won't happen.
Consider the characteristics of a Wikipedian, that enabled him to grow and survive in that hostile environment. He had to be tenacious and resourceful enough to learn wikitext and deal with a lot of annoying bureaucratic fucks. Do you expect he's suddenly going to somehow lose all that gumption when he gets banned? Not likely.
The more hardcore Wikipedians also tend to be pretty anti-authoritarian. That's why they're editing Wikipedia all day instead of using their talents at a paying job. They don't want to have to answer to a boss, or a customer; they'd rather be exploring whatever area of knowledge they find interesting at any given moment, and using Wikipedia as a place to organize and share that research, and interconnect it with other knowledge. There's not really another comprehensive outlet like that available, and the personality trait that makes one want to do that doesn't just go away.
An anti-authoritarian guy is not going to suddenly say, "Oh, because some bureaucratic fuck on Wikipedia says not to edit, I'm not going to edit." We know that these admins are not the best of the best Wikipedians; they're just people who were good at obtaining power in a Machiavellian way. Spergs and cynics are a different breed from these manipulators. We know that we're superior to them, and that there's no moral reason why we have to respect them.
Wikimedia says that global bans are permanent, non-negotiable, and unappealable. Yeah, well, so is the turboneet's determination to keep editing, any bans notwithstanding. They think, "Oh, we'll just block him and delete his articles and he'll give up in frustration." Nope. Those articles can be saved and reposted under some different title. E.g., you delete an article called "French prepositions" that was posted by some banned user, and next thing you know, it's posted as "Prepositions (French)" or "Prepositions in French grammar" or something of the like, because he copypasted the wikitext into his email account before the page got deleted and now he can just copypaste it right back into Wikipedia.
Or, he can just translate it into another language and post it into a different language wiki. Wikiversity or Wikibooks are other possibilities, if the content can be labelled a "resource" or part of a book. Or, he can post it one of these small, third-party wikis where at least the content can survive and show up in Google results.
Or, even if he didn't save it, if it was saved in the Google cache, he can get it from there; or even if he simply remembers that there was enough research out there to write a decent article, that means it can be written again. Once you've researched a topic once, you probably remember where some of your sources were. But even if you're NOT going to write or post the article again, just writing it once probably taught you a lot about the subject, and led you into some other interesting tangentially-related subjects, that you can write about next time.
So, even if your work got deleted, who really cares? It's a loss to the public, and it may be annoying in those cases where you try to refresh your memory about what you researched earlier and it's not there anymore; but in reality, if you hadn't been editing Wikipedia, you might have had nothing else to do anyway besides beat Final Fantasy for like the 12th time. Also, when admins delete good work, it makes them look like assholes, to those few who saw it before it got deleted. G5 is controversial for a reason, and always has been.
It's like any other area of stupid deletion, like hemovanadin-type scenarios, which happen all the time. Someone who thinks logically about the situation might put two and two together and realize, "Hmm, if there are stupid deletions, maybe there are stupid bans too?" Definitely there are unexplained bans, like when Wikimedia or the ArbCom make decisions in private and say that the situation is to be discussed by email only. If Wikimedia were a public entity, there would be a right to a public trial, and freedom of information, and all that. Those used to be goals that Wikimedia voluntarily adhered to; but now they cite privacy as a reason why they need to keep evidence and reasoning secret.
Nah, that's not what it's about; it's about avoiding scrutiny and accountability. It's about being able to censor without being called out for censorship. It's about public relations; making themselves LOOK unbiased. Anyway, we know what's really going on, and we're not going to accept it.
It's Irresistible Force vs. Immovable Object, and this fight is apparently going to go all 10 rounds and then some before anyone decides to tap out, so might as well settle in, because this isn't going to be over any time soon.
Last edited: