Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-11-29/Interview

Discuss this story

Regarding "CPOV was chosen to contrast playfully with the foundational and self-contradictory NPOV policy. We thought it clearly signified that we were not a bunch of "gee-whiz isn't Wikipedia great" academics." - I didn't make a fuss about the following, but I do think they were somewhat insular in terms of not respecting some critical points of view. Per an article by One Who Shall Not Be Named, "Wikipedia criticism group purges three critics":

"The CPOV organisers have decided to remove you from the list. We feel that your contributions are working against the kind of dialogue we would like to see flourish on our list. Our intent is not to nit pick about Wikipedia, show our disdain for it, or to reveal its members to be evil or cult-like, etc. etc. Moreover, we do not wish to alienate people who participate in Wikipedia in our discussion."

I know, I know, the audience here may cheer. And, loyalty oath, it was their right to do so. But again, I do think it indicated a notable narrowing of boundaries of discussion. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the article written by Gregory Kohs, the reason why he, Finkelstein, & Jon Awbury were all banned from that mailing list is clear to anyone who peruses the mailing list archives: the three of them turned the list into a medium for expounding their views on Wikipedia. Over the months previous to their ban, the list was overrun with posts from two all of them.

I am not saying that there are no problems with Wikipedia, either in its management or its content. But far too often the problems that people like these three complain about only exist in their minds. (Wikipedia a cult? I've been here 8 years & I still haven't seen any believable signs indicating that.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two points: 1) I honestly don't think the first part is an accurate characterization. I don't believe there's a way I could objectively convince you, so I'll have to leave it at that. I can point out nothing was said about posting too much, rather the reasons given were specifically viewpoint-based, so there's at least that much evidence you're inventing a negative justification (I've been around the Net long enough to know how this goes :-( ). The sentence "Moreover, we do not wish to alienate people who participate in Wikipedia in our discussion." seems especially indicative of a certain bias and exclusion in order to favor Wikipedia supporters (which, sigh, is not saying everyone there is a Wikipedia supporter, rather that a deliberate managerial decision was made to exclude people who dedicated supporters would object to, regardless of whether they did anything wrong). It's inevitable that this will be deemed the fault of the excluded, but I just don't think that's a fair assessment. 2) See the process outlined in point #1 1/2 :-). -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is your complaint that the list moderators said, in effect, "Go away. We aren't interested in what you have to say?" We have all received that kind of response; it happens on & off the internet all of the time. (I haven't subscribed to that list because, quite bluntly, I don't think they have anything that I'm interested in.) As for your concern that "nothing was said about posting too much", the three of you are well known as critics of Wikipedia, & nothing any of you posted there was different from what all of you have posted about elsewhere. Whether the label is appropriate or not, people who say the same things about the same subjects & ignore the feedback or responses are seen as being kooks -- & get banned. Maybe it's time for you three to either figure out how to present your ideas in a new way, or simply move on from these ideas. For better or worse, Wikipedia is going to continue to exist regardless of what the three of you say or do. -- llywrch (talk) 19:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My comment about CPOV is that, repeat "they were somewhat insular in terms of not respecting some critical points of view". My point in the paragraph directly above is that your accusation seems, as best one can objectively show, to be inaccurate and unfair, and driven by opposition to critics. You made a specific conduct charge, based on nothing I can see but the viewpoints of the sides involved. When evidence was put forth tending to rebut this charge and prove my original point (that the removal was viewpoint-based), you have done nothing but reiterate negative characterization of critics. Putting aside the deep philosophical problem that one can never establish anything absolutely, i.e. trying to have some factual determination even it can't be done perfectly, can you see some signs about why Wikipedia is a cult? -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 02:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you are of the opinion that Gregory Kohs should not be named here; he is so quite often when relevant. Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. It's humor, making gentle fun of the tendency of some (not all, not every, some) Wikipedia people to have an automatic reaction to him. The capitalized "...-Not-Be-Named" is an allusion to the sacred and the profane. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion and material is available at An Infamous Site in a thread on Institute Of Network Cultures -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two additional remarks:

It probably wasn't quite clear from the wording that Johanna Niesyto's research as described in the interview belongs to her dissertation (working title: "political knowledge cultures in the wikipedia").
All but one of the images were made at the Leipzig conference (thanks Ziko and Rob Irgendwer!); this slight bias is due to the fact that among the photos from the other two conferences which are available online, none appeared to be under a free license suitable for Wikipedia. However, Anne Helmond generously agreed to relicense the shot of Nate Tkacz under CC-BY-SA on the occasion of this interview.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There were two different kinds of contributions in Leipzig:

One group, of which Peter Haber was a representant, was very critical about Wikipedia, but as these contributions were well based and showed a lot of insight, the Wikipedians accepted it and were happy to learn.
The second group was very critical about Wikipedia without showing insight. There was one person who claimed that Wikipedia in German language is only a Germany Wikipedia, because articles about Austrian and Swiss subjects are likely to be deleted. When Mathias Schindler of WMDE asked for examples, there came nothing. Of course not, because the person had made it simply up.

Sometimes it seems that Wikipedians can't bear negative comments on their project. The truth is that we love contributions from the first group, even if their judgement about Wikipedia is very "negative". But with the second group, our pacience is expectedly low.--Ziko (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]