Wikipedia: The Cunctator/How to destroy Wikipedia

Difference (from prior major revision) (minor diff, author diff)

Changed: 1c1

The following are The Cunctator's opinions and interpretations of situations at the time they are written (see its history to see when sections are written). The style is intentionally hyperbolic. If the Cunctator believed that any of the people mentioned within had been acting in bad faith or was deliberately malicious, he would write that. But he doesn't, so he hasn't.

I'm sick and tired of being attacked by Larry, both verbally and by the deletion and erasure of my work. I'll probably leave Wikipedia soon.

Changed: 3c3

Be in Charge and Be a Dick

And even though I tried really hard to demonstrate that this page was a semi-parodic act of hyperbolic dissent, the message hasn't seemed to sink through. I hope that the other people mentioned in the essay, namely the "cabalists" and Magnus Manske, understand that I wasn't trying to attack them personally, but simply raise what I still feel are important issues.

Changed: 5c5

See why ManningBartlett left.

In particular, my respect for Jimbo Wales has only increased, from his response to this essay and his respectful (without being indulgent) handling of my concerns (though the GFDL sloppiness is really bad!).

Changed: 7c7

Delete Entries

I've removed the essay because, based on Larry's actions, and the emails he has sent to me, this seems to be the main justification for his continued animosity towards my person and my actions. This essay was, I believe, the only source of what a reasonable person could infer (though incorrectly) as being a hostile (or arrogantly destructive) attitude on my part towards Wikipedia.

Changed: 9c9

Deleting entries or content from entries is just a bad fucking idea 99% of the time. Appeals to NPOV and Wikipedia is not a dictionary are used as a club for deleting content. Most of the time it's just censorship. And censorship on Wikipedia leads to arms races.

Please look in the revision history if you want to read the essay or copy it elsewhere. You can also look at The Cunctator/How to build Wikipedia for the rah-rah version of the essay.

Changed: 11c11

There is a 1% when it's a good idea, but the abusers of the NPOV and Wikipedia is not a dictionary believe it's more like 80%.

I at least think that the discussion on this page is useful, and wouldn't presume to even partially delete the work of others by removing these links:

Removed: 13d12

See Larry Sanger/Is Wikipedia an experiment in anarchy for a defense of censorship.

Changed: 15,99c14,15

On your Own, Totally Redesign the Wikipedia Software, and Implement it Without Testing ===

Or, Act Like Microsoft ====

Magnus Manske is a great person, and he's put immense amounts of effort into designing the new Wikipedia PHP script. And he's loaded it with so many new features and capabilities that noone has any idea how it will affect Wikipedia.

Since there's essentially no documentation, mission plan, or any other standard practice for quality software engineering, it's guaranteed to be a monster.

And the only one who will have any idea how to deal with it will be Manske, in part since he's using the lesser-known PHP (but that is a minor concern compared to the individuality of the code).

The current UseModWiki code is hard to understand, but it's deliberately very, very limited in its capabilities. That puts more power in the users and less in the technology.

He's wielding great power without any checks. Those who have power should be forced to justify their actions. Those with great power need to be assiduous in doing so. Manske essentially has infinite power right now.

For anyone who isn't worried about this, just think for a second about Microsoft products.

Make big plans on the Mailing List

The mailing list is the semi-secret repository for the behind-the-scenes scheming to change Wikipedia. The intentions are good, but the technology necessarily engenders the secrecy, which inevitably leads to the "We shall act for the Good of the People" mentality that is very dangerous without strong checks and balances.

Set up a Cabal

Setting up hierarchies is always a temptation, and is why anarchism never works.

Wikipedia is a noble attempt at a limited anarchistic society, but there are now people clamoring to destroy it.

Cabals (and secrecy) are why Dmoz is a horrible, infighting, arbitrary mess, which ultimately reflects its corporate-megalith ownership.

They're why Usenet is a big pain in the ass, filled with loud-mouthed pricks without any humility.

They're why people join Slashdot, karma whore, and then leave.

The proponents of the Cabal see only the benefits of setting up a cabal, and none of the dangers. The benefits are efficiency through the concentration of power. They use the classic arguments states have always used to take away freedoms--the dangerous, mythical insidious lawbreaker (aka the crypto-Communist, the terrorist, etc. See the movie Brazil).

Choice quotation: [1]
:If someone vandalises "the Snakehandling Foursquare Gospel Church of Upper Appalachia", chances are few people will have seen it before it gets fixed. But you can do subtle damage in "Religion" that could be much more long-lasting, not even maliciously, just out of ignorance.

Proponents of the Cabal:
* Jimbo Wales [2]; See also backbone cabal, TINC for background on his ironic choice of the word "cabal"
* Michel Clasquin [1]
* Mark Christensen [3]
* Magnus Manske

Opponents (or at least skeptics) of the Cabal:
* Larry Sanger
* Jimbo Wales (Jimbo Wales/Why I oppose a cabal, Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles)

From the main source of Wikipedia cabalism so far, the Wikipedia-L:

[Jimmy Wales makes a model proposal]

[Michel Clasquin proposes a preliminary cabal]

[Mark Christensen "I generally think this is a good idea", proposing taking away Wikipedian freedoms]
* 1 Karma Point (KP) for signing up with a username
* 2 KP for each day in which you've edited an existing article
* 3 KP for each day you add a new article.
* At 60 KP, you have basic privileges (Editing the home page and the like).
* 100 KP you can block an IP address, user ID#, or user alias temporarily (24 hours)
* 200+ KP you can mark an article for deletion (see the reference for details)

etc. I'll continue this later.

Screw with the GFDL

Wikipedia was informally released under the GFDL, though without the necessary license and copyright notice, which explicitly lists the Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts, and Back-Cover Texts.

In October 2001 Bomis/Wales?/Sanger? asserted that to use Wikipedia content on another site an ugly HTML table, modelled after the DMoz table, must be included on every page which uses Wikipedia content. And this is under the title "How to Use Wikipedia Content in Compliance with the GNU FDL", which is an utter falsehood, as the requirement is totally in conflict with both the intent and the letter of the GFDL.

As SJK wrote in GNU Free Documentation License/Talk:
:[The GFDL] says you can require the document to be distributed with unmodifiable appendices or front-matter sections. I don't think placing a logo on EVERY page can be considered an appendix or a front-matter section. It also seems to imply that the originally released copy of the document would include these sections, but I don't see any of these tables on www.wikipedia.com. It also requires a specific notice naming those invariant sections, which is nowhere found on Wikipedia. Finally, the point remains is that when I at least submitted content to Wikipedia, there was no mention of these optional provisions of the license being used, even though they might be allowed to be by the terms of the license. So I can't see how they can legally be imposed in relation to content authored by me without my consent. The same goes for anyone else who disagrees with the table requirement.

Wikipedia commentary/Responses to How to Destroy Wikipedia, Screw with the GFDL

Be Overly Combative

The Cunctator seems to be going out of his way to phrase arguments in as combative a manner as possible, using titles like "How to destroy Wikipedia" and comparing Manske to Microsoft.

Maybe he's just using strong language because he believes that's what he must do, since that is the only weapon he can wield.

But that's not a terribly good excuse. It's probably just a habit he developed in childhood and refined on Usenet. But maybe he in fact feels so passionately about the promise of Wikipedia that he's compelled to put that passion into his arguments.

Some combativeness and dissent helps societies? thrive. Many have believed that the preservation of the right to dissent with utter vehemence, even violence, is critical to the legitimacy and health of the state.

Politeness? too is a worthy goal. But if calls for politeness come from an all-powerful cabal, which can kick you out, delete your work, etc., well, you can determine what to call that. (See Larry Sanger/Cutting each other a bit of slack, which I think was written in response to this essay.)

Is There Hope?

See /How to build Wikipedia.

Wikipedia commentary/Responses to How to Destroy Wikipedia

Wikipedia commentary/Responses to How to Destroy Wikipedia, Screw with the GFDL

Wikipedia commentary/Responses to How to Destroy Wikipedia

I'm sick and tired of being attacked by Larry, both verbally and by the deletion and erasure of my work. I'll probably leave Wikipedia soon.

Please look in the revision history if you want to read the essay or copy it elsewhere. You can also look at The Cunctator/How to build Wikipedia for the rah-rah version of the essay.

I at least think that the discussion on this page is useful, and wouldn't presume to even partially delete the work of others by removing these links:

Wikipedia commentary/Responses to How to Destroy Wikipedia, Screw with the GFDL
Wikipedia commentary/Responses to How to Destroy Wikipedia