There was a time when Wikipedia was fun. In fact, what initially drew people to the project was the sense of accomplishment at seeing articles written, often sentence by sentence, by dozens of people adding snippets of information found in their home libraries or by searching online. For me a classic example of that is the article "Clown," or "Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius," a former featured article, which began its path as a simple piece of vandalism, "xyz." Watching these articles gradually emerge was exciting, especially for those who participated in it. In fact, I would venture to say that it is what caused top contributors to stick around, and spurred Wikipedia's phenomenal growth. It was a time before bots, when articles were painstakingly crafted, and the contributors felt like craftsmen and women. It was a time with rules, without Arb Comm, and 3RR. It was a time that too many of the present contributors—and none of the new hires from Die Hexe on down—know very little about.
That's why I was pleased when last night MessedRocker posted to the Administrator's Noticeboard (a phenomenon that did not exist back then either) a new section entitled "Time for a twist!" He wrote: "Think of all the good things Wikipedia has done for you. Think of all the good times you have had on Wikipedia. Share with us the best memory you have from Wikipedia." Rather than having every idiot post about stalking, death threats, spam, fringe theories, jaywalking, nose-picking, public flatulence, and a failure to assume good faith, he hoped to get people to focus on the positive, if even for just a few brief moments, in the tension-ridden morass that Wikipedia has become.
Less than two hours later, the section was gone, removed by User:ThuranX, whose focus is movies based on Marvel comics characters. To quote ThuranX, who was quite obviously not around in the pleasant past of Wikipedia: "This is just trolling; move for closing or blanking." And so, we've reached a strange new reality, where taking pleasure or pride in Wikipedia is now considered trolling.
And if there's nothing to take pleasure in, nothing to take pride in, does Wikipedia really deserve to survive?
P.S. Several people did respond positively to MessedRocker's suggestion, and began listing some moment of pride. It is too bad some anonymous idiot whose hero is the Hulk managed to erase that too.
16 comments:
Unfortunately, far from the first time something like this has happened. Regrettable.
Hoi,
For your information, I like the gist of your posting; I even shared it.
When you reminiscence about the past, it always used to be better then it was. The tensions, the drama and the real problems are not new. Most are on a bigger scale because everything did scale over time.
Writing about how Wikipedia was good for you is a brilliant idea, it may be the same idea that Anthere has... Success has many fathers and mothers :)
Thanks,
GerardM
Aww, editing Wikipedia is lots of fun, just keep anything that starts with Wikipedia: or User: off your watchlist and you'll see dramas as often as I see Sasquatch. I did this with a sockpuppet for a while, while my father in law was riddled with tumors and I just couldn't deal with the dramas. I didn't see a single one.
Our observations from the in-circle (or where we dwell) are just highly biased. C'est tout.
Well Danny, this is problem of culture. In my view, a few years ago the project began tank. It began to valued social climbing over content creation. The turning point was the creation of the secret and invitation only (at the time) admin irc channel, where you and all your little buddies got together and blew sunshine up each others asses. As I remember, this place was dominated by the likes of Kelly Martin, who created orders of magnitude more trouble than content. But hey, Danny, she's one of your little buddies and that's what's important! The problem that you're describing is one that you had a hand in making.
Inadvertently.
The point of #wikipedia-en-admins was to discuss sensitive matters that are better to not be exposed to the general public. We all know how that turned out.
Also consider that many Esperanzans were not administrators.
Labeling some group or other sneeringly as "all your little buddies" is part of the problem (and, yes, I've done it too... it's always very tempting to attribute whatever you don't like to some "clique".) Everybody, on whatever side of these struggles, bears some responsibility for leading Wikipedia into "us vs. them" battles.
Edit of the year: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=218752633
Any idiot calling for the removal of that perfectly acceptable thread deserves a ban (or at least some fresh air).
The Wikipedia hat has gotten a little too tight on some people, I'm afraid.
Chad, that "he committed a thoughtcrime! BAN!!!!!" is one of the reasons why I created the thread to begin with.
He did it for what he felt was a good reason, and for what he felt was in the best interests of Wikipedia. Or so what I ought to assume; the point of assuming good faith is so demons are not created out of misguided people.
You are allowed (and in MY opinion, right) to be critical, but you have to remember he is likely doing it because he thinks it's the right thing, and by assuming that he is doing it with a good intention you're avoiding a lot of pointless witch hunting.
Danny, a related effort was discussed at Wikipedia Review on this thread:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=8433
Much as I hate to agree with anonymous trolls, sadly this one is right, Danny. The snake pit that is the IRC Admins' channel (AKA Cabal Central) was your idea. And though you have done much to redeem yourself lately in the eyes of many, including myself, the damage your monster has done to the culture and structure of Wikipedia is great.
As I once told Giano (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:R.D.H._%28Ghost_In_The_Machine%29&diff=101381200&oldid=101303943 ) Its creation also corresponds closely to the time period when En:Wiki began to slide downhill (the userbox wars, Carnildo affair etc). Not to imply a direct cause and effect relationship here, but I think it is safe to say that while the channel may or may not have precipitated those events, it certainly aggravated matters much worse than if it had not existed. If nothing else, it has helped foster a Groupthink, Us vs Them, Circle the wagons, Führerbunker mentality amongst the admin cabal and in the ArbCom. Esperanza was relegated to the asheap of Wikstory, as a failed experiment...#wikipedia-en-admins needs to suffer the same fate.
The next question is-If Wikipedia deserves to survive, can it be salvaged without destroying most of it?
rdh: I accept your criticism and declare mea culpa. And while this is no defense, I can only say that the vision was hardly like the monster that emerged. What inspires me most, however, is your final comment. Perhaps we should indeed focus on salvaging rather than sustaining.
On that we can agree my friend. And towards that end your Veropedia is a good start.
Hi Danny,
Would you be kind enough to look into this dangling participle and help us understand why it was left hanging?
And in any event, please come heckle us here.
The issue with the post is that it was the complete wrong place for such a thing. That page is for notifying admins of incidents that require attention.
Post a Comment