The Cunctator/How to destroy Wikipedia

Be in Charge and Be a Dick

See why ManningBartlett and Piotr Wozniak left.

Mr. Bartlett chose to be offended, and chose to pick up his ball and stomp home instead of growing a spine. "Rudeness" is created in the minds of listeners, not the mouths of speakers, and a thick skin is a requirement for being useful here. --LDC

I'm not sure that Piotr Wozniak is a good example, either. Piotr didn't seem to feel mistreated, but he did have reservations about the openness of the wikipedia system. His concerns were valid! But they are also concerns that we can't really do anything about and still remain true to the essence of what has made Wikipedia work so far. Perhaps someday Piotr will be pleased to take part in a project which works in a moderated fashion to build on our raw Wikipedia baseline data. I don't think it is fair to characterize his leaving as being caused by anyone 'Being in charge and being a dick'.

I'd like to point out that M Bartlett also said on his page that he would be travelling and without regular computer access for at least 2 weeks, so if he did decide to come back it still wouldn't be today. --MichaelTinkler

Delete Entries

Deleting entries or content from entries is just a bad fucking idea 99% of the time. Appeals to NPOV are used as a club for deleting content. Most of the time it's just censorship. And censorship on Wikipedia leads to arms races.

There is a 1% when it's a good idea, but the abusers of the NPOV believe it's more like 80%.

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 new Wikipedia software. 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.

Microsoft uses copyright law and co-opts standards to ensure that people have to continue using their products. The content of Wikipedia can be moved to any software at any time, because it's open content. If we don't like Magnus's software, we'll use (or build) something else. I'm personally quite glad someone is at least thinking about improvements. I agree that they should be phased in slowly. --LDC

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.

This, of course, is just a lie. There is nothing at all secret about the list--it's 100% open to anyone, and it is advertised in pages here. It is also a more appropriate venue for this kind of discussion. This is an encyclopedia, remember? Discussion lists are for discussions. --LDC

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:

• [Jimmy Wales]?
• Michel Clasquin
• Mark Christensen
• Magnus Manske

Opponents (or at least skeptics) of the Cabal:

• Larry Sanger
• Seb

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.

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.

I have to disagree here--honesty is more important than politeness, and a thick skin is more valuable than a civil tongue. Tolerance is an obligation of listeners, not speakers. That's how to get the most effective communications. --LDC

---

Wikipedia commentary/Responses to How to Destroy Wikipedia