Jump to content

Wikipedia: Difference between revisions

From The Austrian Economics Wiki, the global repository of classical-liberal thought
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 3: Line 3:
[[File:Enwp retention vs active editors.png|thumb|250px|The “holy-shit” graph. Active editors (blue) and the one-year retention rate (red) on the English Wikipedia, 2004–09]]
[[File:Enwp retention vs active editors.png|thumb|250px|The “holy-shit” graph. Active editors (blue) and the one-year retention rate (red) on the English Wikipedia, 2004–09]]
In the late 2000s, its editorship began declining.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125893981183759969.html|title=Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia Ages|publisher=Wall Street Journal|author=Angwin, Julia|date=27 November 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-01-02/Interview|title=The Gardner interview|author=Tony1 and Skomorokh|publisher=The Signpost|date=19 December 2011}}</ref> It appears that new users are having a particularly hard time successfully joining the community.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/March_2011_Update|title=March 2011 Update|publisher=Wikimedia Foundation}}</ref> [[Jeffrey Tucker]] and [[Dick Clark]] have agreed that Wikipedia has more gatekeepers than it used to and that some of these gatekeepers attempt to bias the encyclopedia by keeping out content that does not coincide with their views.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FR2LWUM8in8#t=2m35s|title=The Mises Wiki Dick Clark|publisher=YouTube}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FR2LWUM8in8#t=11m45s|title=The Mises Wiki Dick Clark|publisher=YouTube}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FR2LWUM8in8#t=14m19s|title=The Mises Wiki Dick Clark|publisher=YouTube}}</ref> One of the more famous examples of this was the William Connolley incident.<ref>{{cite web|date=October 22, 2010|title=WikiPropaganda|author=The Wall Street Journal|url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304410504575560630778483558.html}}</ref> One of the main controversies on Wikipedia is between inclusionists and deletionists, opposing factions on the issue of the merits of deleting articles for the subject's lack of notability.<ref>{{cite news|title=The battle for Wikipedia's soul|publisher=The Economist|url=http://www.economist.com/node/10789354|date=6 May 2008}}</ref>
In the late 2000s, its editorship began declining.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125893981183759969.html|title=Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia Ages|publisher=Wall Street Journal|author=Angwin, Julia|date=27 November 2009}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-01-02/Interview|title=The Gardner interview|author=Tony1 and Skomorokh|publisher=The Signpost|date=19 December 2011}}</ref> It appears that new users are having a particularly hard time successfully joining the community.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/March_2011_Update|title=March 2011 Update|publisher=Wikimedia Foundation}}</ref> [[Jeffrey Tucker]] and [[Dick Clark]] have agreed that Wikipedia has more gatekeepers than it used to and that some of these gatekeepers attempt to bias the encyclopedia by keeping out content that does not coincide with their views.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FR2LWUM8in8#t=2m35s|title=The Mises Wiki Dick Clark|publisher=YouTube}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FR2LWUM8in8#t=11m45s|title=The Mises Wiki Dick Clark|publisher=YouTube}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FR2LWUM8in8#t=14m19s|title=The Mises Wiki Dick Clark|publisher=YouTube}}</ref> One of the more famous examples of this was the William Connolley incident.<ref>{{cite web|date=October 22, 2010|title=WikiPropaganda|author=The Wall Street Journal|url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304410504575560630778483558.html}}</ref> One of the main controversies on Wikipedia is between inclusionists and deletionists, opposing factions on the issue of the merits of deleting articles for the subject's lack of notability.<ref>{{cite news|title=The battle for Wikipedia's soul|publisher=The Economist|url=http://www.economist.com/node/10789354|date=6 May 2008}}</ref>
==Governance==
Wikipedia is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, a nonprofit organization founded in Florida in 2003 (and still governed by Florida law), and headquartered in San Francisco, California. It is led by a ten-member board of trustees, three of which are community-elected, two of which are selected by chapters, one is a board-appointed "community founder" seat occupied by Jimbo Wales, and four are board-appointed "specific expertise" seats. The rationale for an Internet-focused organization having chapters has always been suspect, but the WMF claims they are useful for negotiating moral and financial partnerships, setting up Wikipedia parties, communicating with the press in the local language, etc.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Local_chapter_FAQ#What_is_the_point_of_having_chapters.3F|title=What is the point of having chapters?|publisher=Wikimedia Foundation}}</ref> Participation in the chapter selection of WMF board seats is limited to members of chapter boards. This process has in some cases not been particularly transparent, with confidentiality rules prohibiting the distribution of a list of candidates, or the provision of direct question-and-answer sessions between the candidates and chapter members.
Some of the major Wikipedias have a community-elected Arbitration Community that serves as a court of final appeal on matters such as conduct disputes, blocks and bans, removal of administrative tools, and granting and removal of CheckUser and Oversight tools. The ArbCom also sometimes decides matters involving child protection, mental health problems, suicide threats, defamation, certain kinds of real life harassment, or other situations in which privacy and legal concerns prevent open discussion on-wiki. Usually no rationale for these decisions is published to the community. The WMF staff manual has an "On-Wiki Threat Protocol" for dealing with such situations.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Legal_Policies|title=Legal and Community Advocacy/Legal Policies|publisher=Wikimedia}}</ref> The private handling of such matters by the ArbCom without any community scrutiny is controversial.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Policy/Update_and_ratification/Archive_2#.22To_resolve_matters_unsuitable_for_public_discussion_because_of_privacy.2C_legal.2C_or_similar_concerns.22|title="To resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion because of privacy, legal, or similar concerns"|publisher=Wikipedia}}</ref>
Decisions on Wikipedia that fall outside the purview of the ArbCom are generally made by "rough consensus," a rather nebulous term referring to some sort of supermajority. Policies can be changed by direct edits to the pages that no one reverts, or they can be made by formal proposal. Formal proposals tend to have a very low pass rate.
Wikipedia has sysops who have power to protect and delete pages, block users, and perform other administrative functions. Wikipedia also has bureaucrats who have power to promote to sysop those  users who receive approximately 80% support in a weeklong discussion. Because Wikipedia is structured as a democratic republic, it suffers many of the same governance problems as other [[democracies]]. The bulk of the community has, however, repeatedly rejected proposals for commercialization.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commercialization|title=Commercialization|author=Meta-Wiki}}</ref>


==Links==
==Links==

Revision as of 03:23, 26 July 2012

Wikipedia is a web-based encyclopedia written and presented through the use of wiki technology. It is continuously maintained, and updated through collaborative efforts of volunteers from all over the world who are able to freely edit the articles contained in the project (with some restrictions). The encyclopedia currently contains over 19 million articles (over 3.9 million in English).

The “holy-shit” graph. Active editors (blue) and the one-year retention rate (red) on the English Wikipedia, 2004–09

In the late 2000s, its editorship began declining.[1][2] It appears that new users are having a particularly hard time successfully joining the community.[3] Jeffrey Tucker and Dick Clark have agreed that Wikipedia has more gatekeepers than it used to and that some of these gatekeepers attempt to bias the encyclopedia by keeping out content that does not coincide with their views.[4][5][6] One of the more famous examples of this was the William Connolley incident.[7] One of the main controversies on Wikipedia is between inclusionists and deletionists, opposing factions on the issue of the merits of deleting articles for the subject's lack of notability.[8]

Governance

Wikipedia is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, a nonprofit organization founded in Florida in 2003 (and still governed by Florida law), and headquartered in San Francisco, California. It is led by a ten-member board of trustees, three of which are community-elected, two of which are selected by chapters, one is a board-appointed "community founder" seat occupied by Jimbo Wales, and four are board-appointed "specific expertise" seats. The rationale for an Internet-focused organization having chapters has always been suspect, but the WMF claims they are useful for negotiating moral and financial partnerships, setting up Wikipedia parties, communicating with the press in the local language, etc.[9] Participation in the chapter selection of WMF board seats is limited to members of chapter boards. This process has in some cases not been particularly transparent, with confidentiality rules prohibiting the distribution of a list of candidates, or the provision of direct question-and-answer sessions between the candidates and chapter members.

Some of the major Wikipedias have a community-elected Arbitration Community that serves as a court of final appeal on matters such as conduct disputes, blocks and bans, removal of administrative tools, and granting and removal of CheckUser and Oversight tools. The ArbCom also sometimes decides matters involving child protection, mental health problems, suicide threats, defamation, certain kinds of real life harassment, or other situations in which privacy and legal concerns prevent open discussion on-wiki. Usually no rationale for these decisions is published to the community. The WMF staff manual has an "On-Wiki Threat Protocol" for dealing with such situations.[10] The private handling of such matters by the ArbCom without any community scrutiny is controversial.[11]

Decisions on Wikipedia that fall outside the purview of the ArbCom are generally made by "rough consensus," a rather nebulous term referring to some sort of supermajority. Policies can be changed by direct edits to the pages that no one reverts, or they can be made by formal proposal. Formal proposals tend to have a very low pass rate.

Wikipedia has sysops who have power to protect and delete pages, block users, and perform other administrative functions. Wikipedia also has bureaucrats who have power to promote to sysop those users who receive approximately 80% support in a weeklong discussion. Because Wikipedia is structured as a democratic republic, it suffers many of the same governance problems as other democracies. The bulk of the community has, however, repeatedly rejected proposals for commercialization.[12]

Links

References

  1. Angwin, Julia (27 November 2009). "Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia Ages". Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125893981183759969.html. 
  2. Tony1 and Skomorokh (19 December 2011). "The Gardner interview". The Signpost. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-01-02/Interview. 
  3. "March 2011 Update". Wikimedia Foundation. http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/March_2011_Update. 
  4. "The Mises Wiki Dick Clark". YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FR2LWUM8in8#t=2m35s. 
  5. "The Mises Wiki Dick Clark". YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FR2LWUM8in8#t=11m45s. 
  6. "The Mises Wiki Dick Clark". YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FR2LWUM8in8#t=14m19s. 
  7. The Wall Street Journal (October 22, 2010). "WikiPropaganda". http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304410504575560630778483558.html. 
  8. "The battle for Wikipedia's soul". The Economist. 6 May 2008. 
  9. "What is the point of having chapters?". Wikimedia Foundation. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Local_chapter_FAQ#What_is_the_point_of_having_chapters.3F. 
  10. "Legal and Community Advocacy/Legal Policies". Wikimedia. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal_and_Community_Advocacy/Legal_Policies. 
  11. ""To resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion because of privacy, legal, or similar concerns"". Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Policy/Update_and_ratification/Archive_2#.22To_resolve_matters_unsuitable_for_public_discussion_because_of_privacy.2C_legal.2C_or_similar_concerns.22. 
  12. Meta-Wiki. "Commercialization". https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commercialization.