Corruption At Wikipedia Options

[eKstreme]

An interesting write-up about the upper echelons of Wikipedia. Now we know how they play the game.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04/wi...secret_mailing/

So much for a trusted source. I wonder what the SEs will think of that now. Ah who am I kidding.

Pierre

[Adrian]

Not exactly a glowing endorsement of Wikipedia eh

But then, I'd always be slightly suspect of the reporting at The Register. I've always thought them something of a sensationalist tabloid when it comes to their style.

[eKstreme]

Agreed about the Register's style but that should not detract from the fact that there is a group of people at the top of the admin team that are colluding without public scrutiny. Total transparency is supposedly at the heart of Wikipedia's mission so what the Reg is reporting is fundamentally a form of corruption...

Pierre

[bwelford]

Colluding without public scrutiny .. that isn't necessarily bad.

I don't see any problem with an Admin process where not everything is in the public eye. The real story here seems to be the paranoia and the heavy handed treatment of dissent by the Admin group. It comes down to control. I don't think Jimbo wants to lose that.

[Ruud]

This is only a surprise if one sees Wikipedia as an open "1 vote per person" system.

Somehow that idea has gotten in the world simply on the basis that anyone can edit or contribute to Wikipedia.

Back in August I wrote about Jimmy's skepticism regarding both the idea of "wisdom of the crowds" itself as well as to the idea of applying it to Wikipedia.

I love to be skeptical myself as well. I love to ask who does what why. In other words: who benefits how from something.

I don't believe Wikipedia has ever completely belonged to "the" community. Admins and super-admins always have had to be part of the process. On the very top is Wales himself who has never relinquished control.

Mr. Wales nowadays is a Famous Person. Out of this fame a commercial enterprise has risen: Wikia. It's him alone as Wales doesn't acknowledge the involvement of Larry Sanger in starting Wikipedia up to the point of frequently editing him out.

Some more background on that and additional insight in arbitrary rules and edits by mr. Wales can be found in Wales and Sanger on Wikipedia.

[bobbb]

Colluding without public scrutiny .. that isn't necessarily bad.

Not sure about that. If it is a private business OK and let's not discuss all the NSA's concerm over the Internet.

But when it is information for the people, of the people, by the people... Hmmm

That is their mandate I presume.

I wonder what the SEs will think of that now

Does that mean they will not rank 1-2-3 anymore?

[yannis]

I love to be skeptical myself as well. I love to ask who does what why. In other words: who benefits how from something.

I personally - although skeptical of the content sometimes - I find the Wikipedia as an above average source of information on many topics. If nothing else sometimes is a better starting point for search than Google.

Is it democratic? I doubt it. Are there 'politics' and 'interests' involved, probably. Take politics and religion out of it and is more or less ok. Is it evolving in the right direction? I think so. Anyone that watched the articles over the years can sense a steady and continuous improvement.

Yannis

[NewUser]

You guys don't know the half of it. This particular scandal (which was only noticed because the person she banned unfairly was a longtime hardcore user (who has now quit Wikipedia) and had lots of friends who were willing to get VERY upset - usually this kind of thing happens quietly and often) involved a woman and guy who were famous for going to SEOs and lecturing them on "how SEOs should edit Wikipedia". Here is the email that she used to prove the editors guilt. This is not a one-off affair whatsoever. The email here would be hilarous if this woman didn't regularly to this to people and businesses.

Durova's interview at the SMX, where she spoke with her cohort Jehochman is here on Youtube. She's a really funny case, because she liked to write these articles about how your company could get its reputation ruined on Wikipedia, or how best to follow the rules if you are a business or SEO, and then she'd do her best to make sure that the uninitated where tripped up, assuming "conflict of interest" at first pass, sometimes ruining reputations. Strange stuff. We've all been watching this ridiculous charade for months, and wondering when you guys were going to "get it". One SEO, Eric Lander, wrote a funny blog after the SMX conference, which showed he's had about enought of the Jon and Durova show.

Jehochman was part of the original dispute, but he managed to weasel out of being punished by jettisoning her as a mentor. He's still running around giving SEO lectures, as we speak, and he'll doubtless call this no-big-deal. (these people have no concept of what corruption is) He spent the first 2 days of the affair blocking, banning and attacking anyone who brought up the issue. In fact, the entire "cabal" at Wikipedia, sees this (and I do quote) "a tempest in a teapot".

Very, very reminicent of the Wikipedia Essjay scandal earlier this year when Jimbo Wales said that he "didn't have a problem" with one of the Arbitrators having lied about having two doctorates, including repeating that lie in an interview with the New Yorker. Wales even hired the guy at Wikia (he was a 24 year old college dropout). A public outcry ensued, and Jimbo let the guy go (he's disappeared since).

Back to this scandal: Here's a film short on the scandal (adobe flash required). Before Durova resigned her admin priviliges (she's still on Wikipedia) and the real scandal blew up when Jimbo Wales tried to brush off the matter.

This post has been edited by NewUser: Dec 7 2007, 08:04 AM

[Ruud]

Thanks for the informative post, NewUser.

I'm afraid that unless something a lot more juicy happens, all this will basically go unnoticed by the public at large. It's a little bit like Facebook's Beacon program: a couple of hundred bloggers get upset but the larger public can't be bothered.

[Selina]

Found your article via our RSS feeds.

Would just like to say that anyone who wants to discuss this issue is also very welcome to over at The Wikipedia Review, we're a forum that is over a year old that allows the discussion of Wikipedia with nearly free speech

The site is used by a large amount of Wikipedia users and administrators, but is completely independent of The Wikimedia Foundation or the for-profit arm Wikia.

This post has been edited by cre8pc: Dec 7 2007, 03:23 PM

[bwelford]

Welcome to the Forums, Selina.

I think Wikipedia is an incredible resource for us all and it's good to hear that there is a place to keep it honest.

[storyspinner]

After being on the road for 2 weeks and finally get to catching up, i'm surprised this didn't get much more of a mention in our search community (I'm talking the bigger news sites - SEL, SEJ) than just the one link i found in the recap on SEL, and a mention of this thread on SERoundtable.

What I did see though is this Selina person posting the same exact thing that was posted here in the comments of every blog that mentions this "scandal". I probably find that most interesting of all - Wikipedia having it's only volunteer PR Corps to clean up the the "mess".

Really is reminiscent of DMOZ and it's back door going ons, don't you think?

[Selina]

Not really... I'm guessing you haven't actually looked at the site, it is in no way Wikipedia's "volunteer PR corps" by any definition. Quite a few of the most corrupt administrators there would like us to be silenced completely and even mentioning our site on Wikipedia gets people into trouble.

This post has been edited by Selina: Dec 18 2007, 09:00 PM