Changes

== INSTANT EDITING OF ARTICLES ==  

== INSTANT EDITING OF ARTICLES ==  

Anonymous editing at Wikipedia may be the single greatest factor causing its decline and it will probably cause its eventual destruction.  This feature ensures that both the improvement and the marring of articles are impermanent, and that the battles against internet trolls, polemicists (in wikispeak, “POV pushers”), spammers, vandals, and ignorant interlopers will be everlasting (at least while Wikipedia still exists).  It is this single feature of Wikipedia, more than any other, that gives rise to the [[MMORPG]] character of Wikipedia and makes ridiculous its claim of being an “encyclopedia”.

Instant editing at Wikipedia may be the single greatest factor causing its decline and it will probably cause its eventual destruction.  This feature ensures that both the improvement and the marring of articles are impermanent, and that the battles against internet trolls, polemicists (in wikispeak, “POV pushers”), spammers, vandals, and ignorant interlopers will be everlasting (at least while Wikipedia still exists).  It is this single feature of Wikipedia, more than any other, that gives rise to the [[MMORPG]] character of Wikipedia and makes ridiculous its claim of being an “encyclopedia”.

If the Wikipedia experience has proved nothing else, it has that there is a good reason that previously established print encyclopedias (wikispeak: “paper encyclopedias”) use editorial boards to vet suggested changes to content: '''they are needed'''.  A number of members have suggested as a reform that ''all'' article pages (wikispeak: “articlespace”) on Wikipedia be “locked down”, editable only by an editorial board, qualified by knowledge and/or expertise in a particular subject area.  Wikipedia could still retain its user pages and discussion pages, which in this case would be refocused upon users making suggested changes to an article, or suggesting new articles, for the editorial board to act on.  The ability of knowledgeable amateurs to suggest changes, and the transparency of the process, would still distinguish Wikipedia from other encyclopedias.

If the Wikipedia experience has proved nothing else, it has that there is a good reason that previously established print encyclopedias (wikispeak: “paper encyclopedias”) use editorial boards to vet suggested changes to content: '''they are needed'''.  A number of members have suggested as a reform that ''all'' article pages (wikispeak: “articlespace”) on Wikipedia be “locked down”, editable only by an editorial board, qualified by knowledge and/or expertise in a particular subject area.  Wikipedia could still retain its user pages and discussion pages, which in this case would be refocused upon users making suggested changes to an article, or suggesting new articles, for the editorial board to act on.  The ability of knowledgeable amateurs to suggest changes, and the transparency of the process, would still distinguish Wikipedia from other encyclopedias.

When and how will Wikipedia’s death spiral play out?  This is difficult to say with any certainty.  The only thing one can say with confidence is that The Six Rotten Pillars will continue to act together to erode confidence in Wikipedia, eventually leading to a sustained decrease in donations of both money and labor to the website.  As both a charity and a volunteer project, such donations are Wikipedia’s lifeblood.  It cannot survive without them.

When and how will Wikipedia’s death spiral play out?  This is difficult to say with any certainty.  The only thing one can say with confidence is that The Six Rotten Pillars will continue to act together to erode confidence in Wikipedia, eventually leading to a sustained decrease in donations of both money and labor to the website.  As both a charity and a volunteer project, such donations are Wikipedia’s lifeblood.  It cannot survive without them.

Wikipedia’s demise desirable for various reasons.  The most commonly cited reasons are the harm it does to the cause of spreading human knowledge and the harm it does to individual human beings.  These are weighty and worthy reasons, as Wikipedia acts as a platform for libel, revenge, disinformation and the exploitation of the addicted and mentally ill.  But there is another reason: due to its huge popularity and sheer size, Wikipedia syphons off much time, effort and resources that might well otherwise go to more worthy projects and pursuits.

Wikipedia’s demise is desirable for various reasons.  The most commonly cited reasons are the harm it does to the cause of spreading human knowledge and the harm it does to individual human beings.  These are weighty and worthy reasons, as Wikipedia acts as a platform for libel, revenge, disinformation and the exploitation of the addicted and mentally ill.  But there is another reason: due to its huge popularity and sheer size, Wikipedia syphons off much time, effort and resources that might well otherwise go to more worthy projects and pursuits.

Add to this that it will likely take Wikipedia’s demise to get the scales to fall from the eyes of many of its apologists in order for them to realize its design was fatally flawed from the start.  It is certain, however, that there are a few bitter-enders for whom even Wikipedia’s utter destruction as a website will not be sufficient.  They will always blame the trolls, the vandals, the “POV pushers”, the spammers, media “enemies”, and the “haters at WR” for Wikipedia’s fall.  In other words, practically everyone ''except themselves''.  They will never come to realize that they contained within themselves a fatal mindset that there was never really that much wrong with “the wiki”; that all that is required is a few blocks, a few desysoppings and a few policy tweaks to make Wikipedia better than ever.  I call this a “fatal” mindset because it is truly fatal for Wikipedia.  It is a mentality shared not only among the cabalistas, but also by many other dedicated Wikipedia users, and it very effectively stands in way of there ever being any meaningful reform to save Wikipedia from itself.  One could even call it “The Seventh Rotten Pillar of Wikipedia”.

Add to this that it will likely take Wikipedia’s demise to get the scales to fall from the eyes of many of its apologists in order for them to realize its design was fatally flawed from the start.  It is certain, however, that there are a few bitter-enders for whom even Wikipedia’s utter destruction as a website will not be sufficient.  They will always blame the trolls, the vandals, the “POV pushers”, the spammers, media “enemies”, and the “haters at WR” for Wikipedia’s fall.  In other words, practically everyone ''except themselves''.  They will never come to realize that they contained within themselves a fatal mindset that there was never really that much wrong with “the wiki”; that all that is required is a few blocks, a few desysoppings and a few policy tweaks to make Wikipedia better than ever.  I call this a “fatal” mindset because it is truly fatal for Wikipedia.  It is a mentality shared not only among the cabalistas, but also by many other dedicated Wikipedia users, and it very effectively stands in way of there ever being any meaningful reform to save Wikipedia from itself.  One could even call it “The Seventh Rotten Pillar of Wikipedia”.