Changes

The process to determine “consensus”, and in turn content, is but vaguely defined in the policy.  There is an expression that “a limited group of editors” cannot determine “consensus”, but no explanation of how to determine what constitutes “a representative group”, which is empowered to decide “consensus” “on behalf of the community as a whole.”  Mostly, the policy is a mish-mash of several wiki-mutuality concepts (like “neutrality”, “good faith”, and “civility”) that are expected through some wiki-magic to work together to provide the process that in turn provides the content.  This policy was famously satirized in 2006 by the comedian and author Stephen Colbert, who dubbed it [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wikiality “wikiality”], the [http://www.wikiality.com/Wikiality process] by which [http://www.wikiality.com/Truthiness “truthiness”] is determined.  This soon thereafter led to the famous [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elephant/Colbert Tripling Elephants Incident], which in turn led to Colbert being [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Stephencolbert “indefblocked” from Wikipedia by Jimbo] for his crimes of unmutuality.

The process to determine “consensus”, and in turn content, is but vaguely defined in the policy.  There is an expression that “a limited group of editors” cannot determine “consensus”, but no explanation of how to determine what constitutes “a representative group”, which is empowered to decide “consensus” “on behalf of the community as a whole.”  Mostly, the policy is a mish-mash of several wiki-mutuality concepts (like “neutrality”, “good faith”, and “civility”) that are expected through some wiki-magic to work together to provide the process that in turn provides the content.  This policy was famously satirized in 2006 by the comedian and author Stephen Colbert, who dubbed it [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wikiality “wikiality”], the [http://www.wikiality.com/Wikiality process] by which [http://www.wikiality.com/Truthiness “truthiness”] is determined.  This soon thereafter led to the famous [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elephant/Colbert Tripling Elephants Incident], which in turn led to Colbert being [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Stephencolbert “indefblocked” from Wikipedia by Jimbo] for his crimes of unmutuality.

So how does this affect experts?  Note that the emphasis in the policy is not only upon process, but specifically upon “on-wiki” process.  Note also that although there are a few special exceptions specified, none involve experts.  Accordingly, by official policy, the opinions of experts carry no special weight on Wikipedia, nor do any “off-wiki” processes for determining accuracy or reliability of information carry any especial weight.  This would appear to be in conflict with the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOR “No Original Research”] policy, which ostensibly seeks to preserve Wikipedia as a “tertiary source”.  It is little wonder that so many experts have been disillusioned and even angered by their Wikipedia experience.  What Wikipedia appears to offer with one hand, it takes away with another.  Their subject matter knowledge and expertise frequently finds itself trumped by the gamesmanship and knowledge of “on-wiki” processes of otherwise ignorant amateurs, who are most often teens and twenty-somethings.  Being a recognized expert in your field means little to nothing to a Teenaged Mutant Wiki-Admin(tm).  It’s all about process and user behavior; more specifically, about catching your opponent “out” and eliminating them from the game.

So how does this affect experts?  Note that the emphasis in the policy is not only upon process, but specifically upon “on-wiki” process.  Note also that although there are a few special exceptions specified, none involve experts.  Accordingly, by official policy, the opinions of experts carry no special weight on Wikipedia, nor do any “off-wiki” processes for determining accuracy or reliability of information carry any especial weight.  This would appear to be in conflict with the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOR “No Original Research”] policy, which ostensibly seeks to preserve Wikipedia as a “tertiary source”.  It is little wonder that so many experts have been disillusioned and even angered by their Wikipedia experience.  What Wikipedia appears to offer with one hand, it takes away with another.  Their subject matter knowledge and expertise frequently finds itself trumped by the gamesmanship and knowledge of “on-wiki” processes of otherwise ignorant amateurs, who are most often teens and twenty-somethings.  Being a recognized expert in your field means little to nothing to a Teenaged Mutant Wiki-Admin^TM.  It’s all about process and user behavior; more specifically, about catching your opponent “out” and eliminating them from the game.

When it comes to process, it also should be noted that Wikipedia lacks any mandatory process to resolve content disputes.  Ultimately, only voluntary mediation [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution is available].  The dispute resolution jurisdiction of ArbCom (Wikipedia’s “supreme court”) extends only issues of user behavior.  So what does this mean?  On Wikipedia what it most often means is that if a user belongs to a rather determined group (often a “wiki-project”) that is devoted to promoting certain views and holding tough against outsiders with other views, they will usually prevail by wearing down their opponents, or driving them off, through gaming the system.  Ultimately, it is not about what you know, but how you play the game.

When it comes to process, it also should be noted that Wikipedia lacks any mandatory process to resolve content disputes.  Ultimately, only voluntary mediation [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution is available].  The dispute resolution jurisdiction of ArbCom (Wikipedia’s “supreme court”) extends only issues of user behavior.  So what does this mean?  On Wikipedia what it most often means is that if a user belongs to a rather determined group (often a “wiki-project”) that is devoted to promoting certain views and holding tough against outsiders with other views, they will usually prevail by wearing down their opponents, or driving them off, through gaming the system.  Ultimately, it is not about what you know, but how you play the game.