I realize that "dissing" Wikipedia is the "in-thing" these days, and I also realize that people have done it, even if about specific topics, better than I have. There are also other articles out there that deal with the issue. So I suppose I'm just going to add to them.
I have been leery of Wikipedia since its inception; you cannot expect a web-site (and I refuse to call it anything else; I definitely will not call it an encyclopedia) that allows anyone, up to and including users that don't even have to sign up for a free account name, to alter its content and expect much but chaos or mob rule. I shan't throw out such axioms as "most people are stupid", or "common sense isn't so common". I will, however, point to one simple truth: Everyone is different. Not exactly earth-shattering, I realize, but bear with me.
Differences in people means differences in paradigms, which means differences in perceptions--such as the perceived validity of a topic and whether said topic should be expounded or merely touched upon. What one person finds interesting and worthy of lengthy detail another person will not. That second person may even wonder why such a thing needs to be anything but barely mentioned in another section. Then you get into the archetypal "edit wars", the extremes of which have people editing and re-editing for hours, if not days.
Then you have, as others have mentioned, situations where someone works on something, perfecting every minute detail about it, only to wake up the next morning and find it ruined--or, worse, simply gone. That has made some simply give up on Wikipedia, and made others feel dejected, like their entire effort was a true waste. The problem is that Wikipedia isn't truly governed by mob rule--that would only help, as there would then be some sort of governing body in place, and thus some sort of structure and rules held to (that couldn't be altered by any random person). What Wikipedia is ruled by is barely-contained chaos, with only the lightest of structures. "Cliques" form and protect their own, while letting the other "cliques" go hang, for all it matters.
Even already believing all of that, I signed up for an account over a year ago anyway. It's one thing to dislike something on premise, but until one actually experiences something, it can't really be argued one way or another (within reason, of course). So, I'd spent my time learning the basics, altering articles, having "discussions" on edits, and so on and so forth.
I witnessed my cautions given form in ways even I had not imagined. Unless and until servers become incredibly expensive, there shouldn't be a need to delete anything. I refuse to believe that Wikipedia is really that hard-up for cash, either. It logically stands that such cannot be the case--if it were, there would be a harder "push" to garner donations, and there would have been other recourses pursued. As has been pointed out elsewhere, text doesn't exactly take up a lot of space; and if it really became necessary, just simplify the pages themselves and ditch the pictures.
On top of that, there is a notorious penchant for disregarding what is said when it is disagreed with. For example, let's say that Person A creates an article. Person B disagrees with its content on, perhaps, a factual basis. Person A refuses to concede and so either an edit-war starts, or others are called in and most say the same thing: "Compromise." I have a big problem with that--there are times when compromising isn't the answer. There are times where one side is clearly wrong, yet I have personally seen displays of what can only be called passive-aggression; better to concede the battle in order to, perceptually, win the war. Instead of conceding that one is flat wrong on a topic--of any importance--there is this overwhelming tendency to compromise on anything. That leads to at best misleading entries, and at worst flat-out lies.
Here's where I should come up with some "solutions" for how to fix the Wikipedia "problem". And as a matter of fact, I do have some ideas. For one thing, completely ditch the anyone-can-edit strategy. That's flawed. For another, specialize. I have seen some well-structured "Wikis" out there that focused on only one or two rather specific areas. By "specific" I mean things like for certain television shows, certain book series, and so on. Yes, they have their fair share of problems, but in my experience the problems are fewer and of a less-serious nature. Two people disagree, they go to a common source and work it out, sometimes with one side admitting error.
So, yes, specification would be a step in the right direction. In concurrence, there should be restrictions on just who can edit and/or how much they can edit. Borrowing heavily from Jason Scott, I believe that a B.B.S.-style system of "tenure" would help immensely. When a newcomer first signs up, they aren't allowed any editing, or perhaps only very limited editing. They are watched, and talked with, and over a period of time are given more and more responsibility and trust, until they come into position where they, then, can watch over newcomers, so on and so forth.
As it stands right now, everything-and-anything data collection with an anyone-can-do-anything mentality only serves to hamper what might otherwise be a really good project. The combination of, ceding to authority (per Eric Burns' suggestion), a tier-style format of users, and specialization of data-gathering would, I believe, produce a series of projects that people could generally and genuinely enjoy being associated with. As it stands right now, however, Wikipedia is a living testament to why groups of people working together need rigid, immutable rules and structure.
Until such rules and structure are in place, people like myself will turn away, shaking our heads for "what might have been".
No comments:
Post a Comment