Wikipedia commentary/Responses to How to Build Wikipedia

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

---

LMS responds:

Be in Charge and Be Humble

To lead an anarchistic project is a paradox--the only way to successfully do so is to act with humility, to question your actions more than you question those of others.

This is a perfectly valid point--stated in rather oversimplified terms. It is 100% correct that, in order to win the respect and understanding of participants in "an anarchistic project," project organizers must respect others. This does not, however, entail that they must agree with them, or spend a lot of time hand-holding on every issue that comes along; I think most people understand this.

It was in no small part because I have tried to impose my will, day in and day out, on a variety of issues that have come to define Wikipedia's "culture," that it has come to have the reasonably healthy (if imperfect) and productive culture it does have. It's quite possible that this has seemed to be less than perfectly humble on my part (I am not infrequently accused of being "arrogant"); but frankly, I ain't paid to be humble. On nearly every issue, I'm asking myself, "Is this going to contribute the construction of a good encyclopedia, or isn't it?" I take the positions that I do with the goal of creating a good encyclopedia. Anyway, I very naturally question myself (I'm a philosopher, and this is one thing philosophers are supposed to do). But that doesn't mean that I'll always remain in a state of uncertainty on any given issue. If this comes off as dogmatism and lack of humility, I'm not sure that can be helped.

Note that I also say that it's important to be Respectful but Firm. I'm not expecting you to be wishy-washy; just that leaders should expect increased criticism and should have to justify their actions more than others. --TheCunctator

Understand Bias

The NPOV is an ideal, and should be recognized such. True neutrality is impossible to achieve. Thus, we must remember that every contribution to Wikipedia is biased. Rather than giving up and deleting everything, we instead try to contextualize, and distinguish the sources of knowledge: scientific, historical, inspirational, cultural, etc.

Yes, the neutral point of view is an ideal that in fact is sometimes difficult to achieve, and probably impossible to achieve with regard to all of our articles as a whole. (I.e., it's almost certainly true that there will be some bit of bias in the entire corpus of Wikipedia articles.) But with regard to any particular article, it not impossible to achieve, and I have not yet seen any persuasive arguments that it is; all or nearly all such arguments are based on misunderstandings (straw men, if you will) of what lack of bias entails. But let's not start that again here: perhaps it isn't necessary that we agree on that question, so long as we can agree to try to fix it when we see it. If we can agree on that, the debate is mainly academic.

That's fine. As long as we agree (largely) on the pragmatic conclusions, and don't mind me asserting my opinion, then it's totally fine to disagree on our specific definitions of neutrality, bias, etc. --TheCunctator

I agree 100% with the view that we shouldn't just delete whatever we regard as being biased, and I think The Cunctator is right to harp on this point. I personally have seen only a few egregious examples of unwarranted deletions, but I agree that there has been a problem along these lines.

One further point should be borne in mind. Our best contributors should not have to waste huge amounts of their time handholding people who are clueless, ignorant, or have an ideological ax to grind; if some of the latter people constantly post nearly worthless stuff, and do not react to polite and reasonable criticism, they and their writing shouldn't expect to be treated nicely.

Thus Respectful but Firm. I too respect people, not bad writing. I think it should be evident from my editing that I don't waste energy handholding, and don't expect it of others, though I wouldn't actively discourage it. Someday that may define some of "our best contributors", because that's what they want to do. --TheCunctator

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

Or, Act Like Perl

We're already doing that.

I beg to differ, obviously. Or let me just say we could do better. --TheCunctator

Emphasize the connection between code and culture. Celebrate and require documentation and a mission plan.

Requiring documentation is requiring people do work. I don't like making requirements of volunteers, particularly when the documentation in most cases is going to be pretty easy.

If it's going to be pretty easy, then it shouldn't be a problem to have it in place before implementation. Documentation is, I and many others believe, an essential component of successful software, especially in the free software/open source world. This is something I have experience in, and I vouch for its voracity. --The Cunctator

I think everything will get done in its good time, and you should not make vicious accusations as you did about Magnus.

What vicious accusations did I make? My tone was vicious, but I did not accuse Magnus of any malicious behavior. --TheCunctator

Frankly, Cunctator, Magnus Manske is one of the most valuable members of Wikipedia (and Nupedia) because he focuses his energies on work, rather than hyperventilation. (Hyperventilating, as he well knows, is my job. :-) ) He has asked people to help and comment and he has been demonstrating the virtues that you have only been talking about (as well as others that you apparently value less than I do).

Frankly, I'm one of the most valuable members of Wikipedia because I focus my energies on work, rather than hyperventilation. I have not "only been talking about" the virtues which Magnus has been demonstrating, and you know it. Or do you really think that my [editing work]? is a bunch of hyperventilation? You don't seem to in your comments on my work.

I really think you need to accept that other people should be allowed to contribute to Wikipedia by writing opinion pieces. Or you should say that you're not interested in them, and I'll stop, and go elsewhere. --TheCunctator

...

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

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 Stallman's goals, which I like. In fact, I'm operating under that assumption, which is why I use such language.

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