Comments on: Bottom-up Processes are Messy

By: Shepachgype

Shepachgype — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 21:57:42 +0000

cialis no prescription cialis recall get cheap cialis lowest prices

By: flurnfive

flurnfive — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 21:48:43 +0000

By: shospinormash

shospinormash — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 02:26:10 +0000

Of assuredly in 1950, the Chinese lived to be 50 years old-time, and 50 years later, the average life-force expectancy was 71 years. depression lexapro how long to work

By: Sewantadaseab

Sewantadaseab — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 17:41:17 +0000

That forecast could deportment the principle of a Alcohol Vade-mecum fitting for the product. depression lexapro It has a provender looking for refund and injunction back too.

By: Rhayader

Rhayader — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 15:24:36 +0000

Tim I’m not sure, but I think you might be getting spammed. Just a hunch.

By: joe

joe — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 14:04:50 +0000

(hoping this won’t get lost in the spam…)

Yes, Wikipedia has elements like judicial review… but it’s much more like having only the Supreme Court and no other subordinate courts. Anyway, +1 for evolving wikipedia policy… although it’s a lot farther from “anyone can contribute” these days (and I’d love to see some good research about people that should be contributing that choose not to or have been disillusioned by the wikipedia editor culture).

By: Timothy B Lee

Timothy B Lee — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 16:27:16 +0000

You wrote 3000 words in that one essay, and I read a couple of other ones you wrote as well. It seems like that should be enough space to provide a specific example. Is there one you think makes the argument particularly well?

By: Jason Scott

Jason Scott — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 16:24:03 +0000

I spoke a lot more about wikipedia than just that essay.

By: Timothy B Lee

Timothy B Lee — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 17:00:14 +0000

Joe,

The question is what’s the alternative? Obviously, in an ideal world it would be great if everyone could agree on a neutral editor who would arbitrate these kinds of disputes. But if Wikipedia actually tried to implement a system that involved more oversight, then the argument would shift from whether to capitalize danah’s name to who’s going to arbitrate the dispute over danah’s name. And those disputes will likely be a lot nastier (because the stakes are higher) and they won’t necessarily settle anything because people will still disagree with the arbitrator’s decisions.

The Wikipedia process actually does have elements that are strikingly like judicial review. The arbitration committee serves the same function as the Supreme Court, and WP policies serve a role similar to judicial precedent. The problem is that WP is so vast that the arbcom only has time to review a tiny fraction of the editing disputes.

By: joe

joe — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 16:49:24 +0000

Although, I must admit, wikipedia edit wars are more about being persistent really than being rational or reasonable… I suspect things don’t move in the right direction as nearly as well as they could (if an “optimal” amount of edit inertia exists). There are amazingly frustrating examples that have lead me to limit my editing to simple corrections or, my favorite, adding citations. (Not a lot to be argued with there!). A classic wikipedia inability to deal is with danah boyd’s entry (she graduated from phd school with me and is a good friend). Danah spells her name all lower case… her birth certificate says this and when she changed her name she did so paying attention to her mother’s wishes to keep it lowercase. However, the lion’s share of journalists don’t know this, don’t care or, often, have style guides that insist on capitalization of proper nouns… so, there’s a ridiculous amount of wheel-spinning on the talk page for danah’s article about this. (As another quick one: I once had someone write to the Dean of my school about a dispute I was *mediating* in wikipedia!)

What I’d like to see is something more like judicial precedent in wikipedia process… that is, cases that can be cited as edge cases or clarifications of the extensive wikipedia editing process. Right now, it’s more about who’s persistent enough or knows the right admins to put teeth in their assertions.