95
edits
Changes
MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Thursday November 14, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to searchTalk:Criticism of crowdsourcing (view source)
Revision as of 03:51, 12 October 2008
, 03:51, 12 October 2008Not everyone is going to agree
</pre>
</pre>
[[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 06:06, 11 October 2008 (PDT)
[[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 06:06, 11 October 2008 (PDT)
== Not everyone is going to agree ==
When Wikipedia Review began, it had no clear purpose. As Igor Alexander originally said "This is a Wikipedia anti-fan site". It was designed to destroy Wikipedia.
One of the great things about the site is that it encouraged everyone to participate. It never cared who people were, just to get their perspective. One of the great aspects of the site was that it was more truthful and open than Wikipedia. Before Wikipedia Review began, on or around Guy Fawke's Day in 2005, there was nowhere to go to to talk openly about Wikipedia's problems.
This idea wasn't ideal though, and eventually some level of moderation was required. Eventually people were required to log in, and a group of people devoted to the idea set up its own domain name and certain rules.
The main problem with Wikipedia Review was that we banned the founder, and got rid of everyone who had ever done anything good with the site. On a minor level, lots of posts were wiped by Selina with no real explanation, as a form of censorship. Selina, and now Somey, are still at it. Notice how after I "left" suddenly my post count went from 6,200 down to 4,500? And how all of a sudden all posts made by me or anyone else in relation to my being the owner were suddenly gone? That kind of thing was a real problem. Posts should only be deleted because they are illegal, not to change truth.
People are going to disagree about what the problems are with Wikipedia. They are going to disagree with what the solutions are. People, in turn, are going to disagree about what is an improvement on the Wikipedia Review idea. Essentially, therefore, I suggest making it mostly the same but with one or two key changes. I suggest making sure that people who have put in a lot of effort to make the site good be encouraged - regardless of whether you like them. Ban people for doing something illegal, not as a power trip. The fact that most of the people banned from Wikipedia Review are former administrators/founders is a very, very bad thing. Yes, Malber, Amorrow and Grace Note deserved to be banned. But Igor Alexander and Blu Aardvark certainly did not.
One thing that I think needs to be encouraged more is to focus on the big issues. Wikipedia is a problem because it is big, it is trusted far too much, and it has the ability to change truth.
If people focussed on those big issues, and tried to look for more examples than just the Lockerbie Bombing and Port Arthur massacre articles (which both have conspiracy theories associated with them and are parts of major cover ups in real life as well) then a criticism site could be more useful. If people focussed more on the articles than on any inter-personal conflict, then things would work better.
Wikipedia Review has, through its history, been overrun with interpersonal conflict disrupting the actual criticism. Ultimately, people are going to disagree, and really, who cares? So long as they aren't doing anything illegal, does it really matter? Most of the interpersonal conflict issues, though, were started by people trying to destroy the site. I really see no reason why they should even be included in the site at all. No Wikipedia administrators allowed. No vehemently pro-Wikipedia people allowed. Nobody who hates the site allowed. Why allow it? Just have people that are trying to help the site. Less interpersonal conflict then, and it is more genuine. Then you can encourage people who are good for the site, and people who love Wikipedia can quite simply go elsewhere. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 20:51, 11 October 2008 (PDT)
