Monday, June 05, 2006
Policies from Hell III: WP:AGF
Today's sucker policy of the day is WP:AGF. Spelled out it means "assume good faith" and in practice in means: "Be always as polite to propaganda pushers as possible." If a self-declared Fundamentalist Christian inserts in the article on "Christ" that Jesus was "slaughtered by some blood-thisty jews, who were after his money", you should assume that he has misread the bible and politely ask him to reword to a more "neutral" point of view, rather than asking a so-called Wikipedia administrator, a Wikibrahmin with the power to impose his will on the mere mortal editors, to evict the guy for blatant Anti-Semitism. Now, this is fortunately a fictional example, but there are real Wikiworld examples as well. I take the easiest and most obvious:
You get the picture. It's, of course, not only such blatantly obvious partisans, who edit articles, be sure that the enemies of these persons are not sleeping, either: And thanks to the widespread anonymity of Wikipedia editors, this might not even apparent. Or that fascist will edit the article on fascism and Sugababes fans the "Sugababes". Remember, when was the last time you thought: "Let's build an encyclopedia, that'll be fun"? And then think, when was the last time, you thought, I really like the idea of [put here something you are passionate about], let's write something to make it happen.
Thus the proper Wikipedia policy would be "Assume Some Faith". Which faith you make ask? Well that would be much easier to detect, if the edits could not be made be anonymous users, whose agendas are hidden.
But, dear Wikipedia freak, you will object: "As we allow anyone to edit [Wikipedia], it follows that we assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If this weren't true, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning." Well, I'm afraid, that's exactly what Wikipedia is: Doomed from the beginning, at least when it comes to its self-declared goal: The creation of an encyclopedia. The idea that contrary too all life experiences Wikipedia would be edited by well-meaning geniuses only makes doomsday all the more ugly: Those with the most resources available at their disposal (and the most zealous crusaders) are and will determine its contents, as long as wolves are guided by rules designed for friendly lemurs.
- Günter Freiherr von Gravenreuth making the entry on "Günter Freiherr von Gravenreuth" more objective
- Tilman Hausherr improving the objectivity of the entry on "Tilman Hausherr"
You get the picture. It's, of course, not only such blatantly obvious partisans, who edit articles, be sure that the enemies of these persons are not sleeping, either: And thanks to the widespread anonymity of Wikipedia editors, this might not even apparent. Or that fascist will edit the article on fascism and Sugababes fans the "Sugababes". Remember, when was the last time you thought: "Let's build an encyclopedia, that'll be fun"? And then think, when was the last time, you thought, I really like the idea of [put here something you are passionate about], let's write something to make it happen.
Thus the proper Wikipedia policy would be "Assume Some Faith". Which faith you make ask? Well that would be much easier to detect, if the edits could not be made be anonymous users, whose agendas are hidden.
But, dear Wikipedia freak, you will object: "As we allow anyone to edit [Wikipedia], it follows that we assume that most people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. If this weren't true, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning." Well, I'm afraid, that's exactly what Wikipedia is: Doomed from the beginning, at least when it comes to its self-declared goal: The creation of an encyclopedia. The idea that contrary too all life experiences Wikipedia would be edited by well-meaning geniuses only makes doomsday all the more ugly: Those with the most resources available at their disposal (and the most zealous crusaders) are and will determine its contents, as long as wolves are guided by rules designed for friendly lemurs.
# posted by fossa @ Monday, June 05, 2006 
Comments:
<< Home
This comment is regarding your blog in general, not this particular entry.
You are so totally on point. Wikipedia is like communism - looks good in theory, but fails in many ways when put to the test. Especially in relation to checks and balances.
I feel that the problem is that there is no incentive to adhere and uphold the policies on wikipedia, thus there are relatively few editors who undertake that role.
Most people are here to promulgate their personal agenda. I'm no exception - I don't really care about other people's disputes or issues. Content overshadows context. I have no incentive to mediate other people's problems.
The people that do find that incentive - whether it be to move up the ranks of wikipedia, or whether they have some altruistic desire to be part of a knowledge database or whatever....what are the incentives? What the hell are they??????
The only incentive on wikipedia is to put out information that matters to you. And if someone comes along and tries to destabilize your POV, then its time to create a cabal and bulldoze your enemies - if you're clever enough and resourceful enough to be able to do it. And every piece of information ultimately comes from a biased POV - and history is written by the victors - however, you rightly pointed out that scientific articles are less contested due to the fact that they are generated by a peer-review machine which is already well established.
In my experience on wiki-drain-your-life-ia, I had an all-out war with 2 other factions. I lost because I 1. was not able to generate a cabal of editors, like one other faction was, and 2. I was too deeply wounded emotionally due to the attacks on my agenda, to be able to go on fighting for my agenda without ending up eventually with some severe stress-related disease, and 3. I didn't have time to waste my life arguing with a bunch of small-minded a-holes about crap that eats away at one's soul and destroys life.
So ultimately, I put up the white flag and lived happily ever after.
Until, one day, I got curious and came back....
Nothing dissolves bad blood like the great destroyer Time. Can't we all just get along and have fun? I'm gonna find out...I have my doubts.
You are so totally on point. Wikipedia is like communism - looks good in theory, but fails in many ways when put to the test. Especially in relation to checks and balances.
I feel that the problem is that there is no incentive to adhere and uphold the policies on wikipedia, thus there are relatively few editors who undertake that role.
Most people are here to promulgate their personal agenda. I'm no exception - I don't really care about other people's disputes or issues. Content overshadows context. I have no incentive to mediate other people's problems.
The people that do find that incentive - whether it be to move up the ranks of wikipedia, or whether they have some altruistic desire to be part of a knowledge database or whatever....what are the incentives? What the hell are they??????
The only incentive on wikipedia is to put out information that matters to you. And if someone comes along and tries to destabilize your POV, then its time to create a cabal and bulldoze your enemies - if you're clever enough and resourceful enough to be able to do it. And every piece of information ultimately comes from a biased POV - and history is written by the victors - however, you rightly pointed out that scientific articles are less contested due to the fact that they are generated by a peer-review machine which is already well established.
In my experience on wiki-drain-your-life-ia, I had an all-out war with 2 other factions. I lost because I 1. was not able to generate a cabal of editors, like one other faction was, and 2. I was too deeply wounded emotionally due to the attacks on my agenda, to be able to go on fighting for my agenda without ending up eventually with some severe stress-related disease, and 3. I didn't have time to waste my life arguing with a bunch of small-minded a-holes about crap that eats away at one's soul and destroys life.
So ultimately, I put up the white flag and lived happily ever after.
Until, one day, I got curious and came back....
Nothing dissolves bad blood like the great destroyer Time. Can't we all just get along and have fun? I'm gonna find out...I have my doubts.
# posted by 
: 10:04 PM
: 10:04 PM
See this blog:
http://www.whywikipediasucks.blogspot.com/
You may get some ideas /questions for this blog.
Post ANY comment here. It will not be deleted.
Wikipedia Sucks BIG TIME, and it needs to be exposed!
http://www.whywikipediasucks.blogspot.com/
You may get some ideas /questions for this blog.
Post ANY comment here. It will not be deleted.
Wikipedia Sucks BIG TIME, and it needs to be exposed!
# posted by : 5:01 PM
: 5:01 PM
Today, I posted the following on Wikipedia:
In the article "Wikipedia criticism"
Heading: Blogs Critical of Wikipedia
Several Internet blogs stand critical towards Wikipedia. In these blogs the General public can express their opinions about Wikipedia. The blog Wikisucks [1] is an example of such a blog
They will probably delete this. It is an example of Bias in Wikipedia.
Post a Comment
In the article "Wikipedia criticism"
Heading: Blogs Critical of Wikipedia
Several Internet blogs stand critical towards Wikipedia. In these blogs the General public can express their opinions about Wikipedia. The blog Wikisucks [1] is an example of such a blog
They will probably delete this. It is an example of Bias in Wikipedia.
# posted by : 5:48 PM
: 5:48 PM << Home
