Changes

This Sixth Rotten Pillar of Wikipedia has probably attracted more attention here on the pages of Wikipedia Review than have the five others.  The names and exploits of certain abusive admins, the policies they choose to selectively enforce and why, the follies of the Arbitration Committee (“ArbCom”), and the battles between individual users, or gangs of users, are the subjects of frequent commentary here.  Wikipedia has been called an anarchy, or alternatively, an absolutist dictatorship on a fascist or Stalinist model.  While neither view is entirely correct, neither is entirely wrong either.  Wikipedia has in fact managed in its own dysfunctional way to combine many of the worst elements of ''both'' anarchy and absolute dictatorship for its governance model.

This Sixth Rotten Pillar of Wikipedia has probably attracted more attention here on the pages of Wikipedia Review than have the five others.  The names and exploits of certain abusive admins, the policies they choose to selectively enforce and why, the follies of the Arbitration Committee (“ArbCom”), and the battles between individual users, or gangs of users, are the subjects of frequent commentary here.  Wikipedia has been called an anarchy, or alternatively, an absolutist dictatorship on a fascist or Stalinist model.  While neither view is entirely correct, neither is entirely wrong either.  Wikipedia has in fact managed in its own dysfunctional way to combine many of the worst elements of ''both'' anarchy and absolute dictatorship for its governance model.

Just what that governance model was meant to be is more than a little confusing.  In April, 2002, The Jimbo issued a vaguely worded essay entitled [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Governance&diff=1639&oldid=1621“Wikipedia Governance”].  The essay makes clear that Jimbo intended to retain a super-veto power as to policy issues; but as to other matters, all he seems to specify is that NPOV is absolutely central to Wikipedia governance, and that those who disagree should leave Wikipedia and “set up [their] own project”.  A more recent page entitled [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Power_structure&diff=1225092&oldid=1035162 “Power structure”] is more detailed, but also more diffuse and confusing.  There it is claimed that “Wikipedia's present power structure is a mix of anarchic, despotic, democratic, republican, meritocratic, plutocratic, technocratic, and bureaucratic elements.”  Add a few diced carrots and some paprika and you’ve got goulash.

Just what that governance model was meant to be is more than a little confusing.  In April, 2002, The Jimbo issued a vaguely worded essay entitled [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Governance&diff=1639&oldid=1621 “Wikipedia Governance”].  The essay makes clear that Jimbo intended to retain a super-veto power as to policy issues; but as to other matters, all he seems to specify is that NPOV is absolutely central to Wikipedia governance, and that those who disagree should leave Wikipedia and “set up [their] own project”.  A more recent page entitled [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Power_structure&diff=1225092&oldid=1035162 “Power structure”] is more detailed, but also more diffuse and confusing.  There it is claimed that “Wikipedia's present power structure is a mix of anarchic, despotic, democratic, republican, meritocratic, plutocratic, technocratic, and bureaucratic elements.”  Add a few diced carrots and some paprika and you’ve got goulash.

One is given to wonder if all of this confusion is largely or wholly intended.  Perhaps so, but more often when one finds a large organization with such a diffuse and ill-defined governance model, the people running the organization are essentially making it up as they go along.  Given Wikipedia’s sheer size and its largely open and instant editing policy, there is no way that Wikipedia’s admin corps of 1,600 has any hope of effectively policing the entire site.  It depends greatly upon ordinary users to do grub-work like reverting vandalism, “recent changes patrol”, correcting grammar and punctuation in articles outside of the user’s areas of interest, etc.  There are a number of users willing to do this, but they tend to burn out after a time, and then limit their activity to their subjects of interest, or give up on “the wiki” altogether.  A great deal of Wikipedia is a constantly roiling mass, agitated by thousands of pot-stirrers.  In terms of any meaningful quality control, Wikipedia is anarchy.  While Wikipedia’s much vaunted “self-corrective process” does indeed exist, it is hardly any match for the pace of constant change, and has not been for quite some time.

One is given to wonder if all of this confusion is largely or wholly intended.  Perhaps so, but more often when one finds a large organization with such a diffuse and ill-defined governance model, the people running the organization are essentially making it up as they go along.  Given Wikipedia’s sheer size and its largely open and instant editing policy, there is no way that Wikipedia’s admin corps of 1,600 has any hope of effectively policing the entire site.  It depends greatly upon ordinary users to do grub-work like reverting vandalism, “recent changes patrol”, correcting grammar and punctuation in articles outside of the user’s areas of interest, etc.  There are a number of users willing to do this, but they tend to burn out after a time, and then limit their activity to their subjects of interest, or give up on “the wiki” altogether.  A great deal of Wikipedia is a constantly roiling mass, agitated by thousands of pot-stirrers.  In terms of any meaningful quality control, Wikipedia is anarchy.  While Wikipedia’s much vaunted “self-corrective process” does indeed exist, it is hardly any match for the pace of constant change, and has not been for quite some time.

To some degree, Wikipedia governance does bears a resemblance to the government of Nazi Germany.  A popular misconception about Nazi government is that it was ruthlessly efficient.  Ruthless, to be sure, but efficient it was not.  The Nazi bureaucracy was an absolute rabbit warren of numerous agencies with overlapping jurisdictions and responsibilities.  Bureaucratic infighting was thus ensured and was rather common.  This was not the result of inadvertence or incompetence, but rather the result of Hitler’s intended design.  With this bureaucratic chaos and the sweeping powers granted him under the Enabling Act, Hitler essentially made himself the German state constitution and the ultimate arbiter of disputes.  All was designed to enhance his personal power and worked very much as intended.  Where the analogy to Nazi government really falls apart, however, is right at the top.  While it would appear that Jimbo always intended to retain some ill-defined special role in Wikipedia governance, there is no evidence that Jimbo ever intended for himself a role as central in Wikipedia as Hitler intended for himself in Germany.  Indeed, Jimbo created ArbCom and other parts of the Wikipedia bureaucratic structure in order to take over responsibilities that he had previously exercised himself.  In the last analysis, Jimbo is simply too much of a dilettante to be an effective absolute dictator.

To some degree, Wikipedia governance does bears a resemblance to the government of Nazi Germany.  A popular misconception about Nazi government is that it was ruthlessly efficient.  Ruthless, to be sure, but efficient it was not.  The Nazi bureaucracy was an absolute rabbit warren of numerous agencies with overlapping jurisdictions and responsibilities.  Bureaucratic infighting was thus ensured and was rather common.  This was not the result of inadvertence or incompetence, but rather the result of Hitler’s intended design.  With this bureaucratic chaos and the sweeping powers granted him under the Enabling Act, Hitler essentially made himself the German state constitution and the ultimate arbiter of disputes.  All was designed to enhance his personal power and worked very much as intended.  Where the analogy to Nazi government really falls apart, however, is right at the top.  While it would appear that Jimbo always intended to retain some ill-defined special role in Wikipedia governance, there is no evidence that Jimbo ever intended for himself a role as central in Wikipedia as Hitler intended for himself in Germany.  Indeed, Jimbo created ArbCom and other parts of the Wikipedia bureaucratic structure in order to take over responsibilities that he had previously exercised himself.  In the last analysis, Jimbo is simply too much of a dilettante to be an effective absolute dictator.

If one wants to cast about for a historical analogy here, the Middle Ages in Europe or the Warlord Era of early 20th Century China provides a better fit.  As so often happens in the wider world, anarchy is followed by feudalism, and this is what happened on Wikipedia.  Note that the word “feudal” does not appear in the Wikipedia governmental goulash list above.  I would suggest that that is no accident.  Feudal systems by their natural arise from conflict, and by decree of The Jimbo, “Wikipedia culture is strongly opposed to Usenet-style flame wars”.  But as a matter of ever increasing fact, Wikipedia ''is'' dominated by Usenet-style flame wars, and to extent it has any effective governance at all, it is exercised through a number of cabals (also supposedly verboten, according to The Jimbo).  This has been documented time and again on the pages of WR.  The cabals are truly the “sausage factories” of Wikipedia where “consensus” gets manufactured.  Were it not for arbitrary misrule of these cabals, there would be no rule at all.

If one wants to cast about for a historical analogy here, the Middle Ages in Europe or the Warlord Era of early 20th Century China provides a better fit.  As so often happens in the wider world, anarchy is followed by feudalism, and this is what happened on Wikipedia.  Note that the word “feudal” does not appear in the Wikipedia governmental goulash list above.  I would suggest that that is no accident.  Feudal systems by their nature arise from, and are sustained by, conflict; and by decree of The Jimbo, “Wikipedia culture is strongly opposed to Usenet-style flame wars”.  But as a matter of ever increasing fact, Wikipedia ''is'' dominated by Usenet-style flame wars, and to extent it has any effective governance at all, it is exercised through a number of cabals (also supposedly verboten, according to The Jimbo).  This has been documented time and again on the pages of Wikipedia Review.  The cabals are truly the “sausage factories” of Wikipedia where “consensus” gets manufactured.  Were it not for arbitrary misrule of these cabals, there would be no rule at all.

<Blockquote><Center>

<Blockquote><Center>