Wikipedia: Wikipedia commentary/Responses to How to Build Wikipedia

Showing revision 20

Responses to How to Build Wikipedia

This is a wonderful opinion piece, and very constructive! I salute you for it!

I think this piece is basically making the same points as The Cunctator/How to destroy Wikipedia, but is much more constructive. I wish you had writen this one originally. --STG

Of course, I think that both essays are constructive, in different ways. They are both saying the same things, in different ways. The reason that I wrote "How to Destroy" first is because I feel that dangerous, bad things need to be marked as such, without softpedaling. I think doing so is "constructive", a vague word if I've ever heard one. "Constructive" really means "putting together the constituent parts of (something) in their proper place and order". Its vague apposition to "destructive" is a modern usage. When you praise this as "constructive", you're implying that the other is "destructive". But I can't say I'm surprised, as the essays were deliberately titled to emphasize the irony of the concept of "constructive criticism", which usually just means "saying things in a nice way".

Talking about problems is always more difficult than talking about positive things. But talking about problems, and calling them such, is not necessarily destructive.

STG: I hope you understand why I wrote Destroy first. For one, I personally couldn't have written Build without having first explicitly defined what I consider to be the most dangerous problems in Wikipedia. --TheCunctator

: Yep, I do. As I said before, my problem is with the whole tone of the destroy piece: accusatory, hostile and somewhat paranoid. That's what I think is destructive, and completely unnecessary when pointing out problems. --STG

It's admittedly accusatory, hostile, and somewhat paranoid. Even if you disagree with the reasons I gave for striking that tone, you should at least recognize that I did explain it. The ranting may be misplaced, but it's reasoned. I admitted that writing this may have negative consequences, but I wanted to be able to be honest about my feelings, opinions, and concerns. --TheCunctator

LMS responds:

Be in Charge and Be Humble

Understand Bias

Totally Redesign the Wikipedia Software, and Implement it as a Community

Or, Act Like Perl

Make Big Plans on Wikipedia

If a mailing list is to be used, it should be better incorporated with the Wikipedia interface. This can be technological or cultural; for example, there could be Wikipedia pages which summarize (for current interest and for posterity) mailing list discussions.

: The latter suggestion requires work to put into effect. If you want to do that work, what results might perhaps be useful to some people who can't be bothered to join Wikipedia-l.

: Beyond that, I'm not sure what else needs to be done. Maybe more links to Wikipedia-l on relevant pages; yes? If so, feel free to add 'em!

: With power comes responsibility. I can't afford to do a lot of work on a project whose outcome I can't really trust. For example, I know that my work on Wikipedia pages is protected by the GFDL--if Wikipedia gets corrupted (in my opinion) then the work will still be safe. I can't know the same is true about the Wikipedia system, in the parts that can't really be (or aren't) GPL'ed. --TheCunctator

: We (and Richard Stallman) disagree with you that the license can't be used to impose this requirement. Please see Wikipedia-L :-), where this has been discussed and can be discussed further. Archives are [here]. --LMS

Avoid Cabals

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

Wikipedia is a noble attempt at a limited anarchistic society, and we must remain vigilant.

: First, let me say that I agree with this sentiment at least: we must not create a hierarchies. Not because we love anarchy (which we might or might not; I kinda do like it myself) but because we want to create an encyclopedia to which people generally feel free to contribute.

: Now, that being said, I want to make a clarification. What Wikipedia is, is an open content wiki-based encyclopedia project. Nobody nobly attempted to set up an anarchistic society (I didn't, anyway, and neither did Jimbo). What we did was try to set up the best way to produce an encyclopedia that is open to the public at large. If what resulted is an anarchistic "society" that seems to work, that's grand! I'm very happy! But the purpose of Wikipedia is not to test the theory of anarchism. It's to create an encyclopedia.

: The GPL and GFDL are explicitly political documents, and are designed to promote certain forms of societies. It seems that you essentially agree with Stallman's goals, which I like. In fact, I'm operating under that assumption, which is why I use such language. --TheCunctator

: Well, GPL and GFDL are licenses. Stallman's essays about them are explicitly political documents. --LMS

: Do you think we can come up with a common language to properly discuss the social dynamics of the Wikipedia project? Or perhaps we need a good entry on "society" which makes clear what the differences and commonalities between a full-bodied society and the Wikipedian society are. --TheCunctator

: I really don't think it matters, actually. --LMS

Be Respectful but Firm

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. Fortunately, that cabal doesn't exist on Wikipedia.

: "Some combativeness and dissent helps societies thrive," yes, but Wikipedia is not a society except in a metaphorical sense. What is it, then? An online encyclopedia project in which the results of our individual minds come together to create something far greater than anything any one of us could produce. In that context, respect and politeness are not merely "worthy goals," they are essential to our staying productive and from stemming mutual alienation. See Wikipetiquette.

: --Larry Sanger

: "Except in a metaphorical sense"? What other sense is there, really? When you have a project that involves people working together, you have a society?. It's irresponsible to ignore the societal ramifications of a project. And I don't think you are. It just seems you're leery of calling the Wikipedia society a society. --TheCunctator

: People talking to each other via the Internet doesn't strike me as a society in the full-bodied sense that anarchism really cares about. That's all--just a relatively unimportant philosophical point. --LMS

: Do you think we can come up with a common language to properly discuss the social dynamics of the Wikipedia project? Or perhaps we need a good entry on "society" which makes clear what the differences and commonalities between a full-bodied society and the Wikipedian society are. --TheCunctator

: Maybe we could. --LMS

Here is another list of ways of how to build Wikipedia:

Make people feel welcome. Praise good work, and don't be too hard on bad work.
Encourage highly-qualified people particularly. Generally speaking, defer to them on issues on which they're experts. It is important that Wikipedia cater to the highest common denominator.
Strongly support neutral point of view. This is the main way we have of ensuring that we can all work together smoothly--despite being from various countries, and with various political, philosophical, and religious views.
As a corollary?, don't try to control other people. Respect the fact that they disagree with you and can do so for intelligent reasons.
Help me, if I ask your help! I can't do everything, y'know. This will free me up to do other stuff that will help make Wikipedia even better.
Help get links from everywhere. One simple way to do this is simply to update the Friends of Wikipedia page, but there are many other good ways to do this. In the time it takes you to write one good article, you might write something about Wikipedia, or ask for a link, that will lead to five or ten new people writing good articles. Generally, see building Wikipedia membership.
Write articles on popular topics. See [1] as well as requested articles and the most basic encyclopedia article topics.