Criticism of crowdsourcing

Consider that Wikipedia Review is now, according to a number of participants there, suffering from various problems of anonymous management and community composition (an influx of Wikipedia apologists). Now may be an opportune time to establish a new forum for research and discussion of similar matters as posed by Wikipedia Review, but with various improvements.

Let this page serve as a discussion place for this new possibility.

Founding principles

1. Our forum will respectfully feature thoughtful, substantiated, objective criticism of unethical, unprofessional characteristics of certain types of information management on the Internet. Participants will use ethical journalistic practice and demeanor in order to describe documented situations involving these issues. Fueling of "drama" and interpersonal conflicts will be discouraged where possible. However, it may be necessary to discuss individual participants on particular websites in specific situations, such as to exemplify "conflict of interest" problems or to scrutinize the character of a website's leadership.
2. Both the ownership and administrative management of the new forum shall all be self-identifying persons with legitimate biographies that map to real-world authenticity.
3. The target audience of the forum will be journalists who publish and broadcast in the areas of technology and information, academics whose research touches these subjects, and the general public. Some of those in the targeted audience will not have an intimate understanding of the inner workings and jargon of subject site policies (e.g., Wikipedia has an extremely complex rule set), so our forum will attempt to address such intricacies by spelling them out in layman's terms.
4. Topical discussions will not be limited to Wikipedia. Other Internet sites for examination may include Google Knol, Citizendium, Encyclopedia Britannica, Wikia, Biographicon, Veropedia, Encyclopedia Dramatica, etc. We can discuss all matter of social, political, commercial, and academic consequences of any of the following:
   • User-generated content
   • Free licenses, the "Free culture movement", and copyright violations
   • Wikis
   • Section 230 considerations
   • Anonymity and privacy on the Internet
5. Participants in the discussion may elect to do so from behind a pseudonymous cloak, but they will be advised that their opinions and status as participants shall carry less "cachet" (clout, gravitas, etc.) than those who self-identify and participate transparently.

Format

Which format would be most suitable for this new forum? Would it be possible to have both formats? If so, what would be more appropriate to have as the site's major format?

Message board

Pros

Fluid discussions between members

More directly participative than a wiki, as each party may express their side without having to include the concepts already presented.

Cons

Derailment of threads

Appears amateur

More likely to cause conflict, especially between "problem" users

Do you vote for this?

Wiki

Pros

Output is inherently more "polished" and "reasoned" than a message board

There is a clear division between content and discussion thereof.

The content is more immediately usable for journalists, academics and media professionals.

Cons

Discussion between parties gets lost in "consensus" of page

Using the same format as that of the subject that one is trying to describe may not be a valid way of producing analysis, especially if the same core principles (ie NPOV, "consensus") are used. It's perhaps important to "think outside the of box".

Do you vote for this?

I think this is the way I'm leaning, but I reserve the right to change my mind. -- MyWikiBiz 20:59, 10 October 2008 (PDT)

I do. A wiki can work perfectly well if participation is restricted and the management exercises diligence over its contents. -- Signed by User:Proabivouac00:58, October 11, 2008

Combination of Message Board/Wiki

Pros

Is already the "setup" at the WR, with the message board and the "blog". That part of the WR model seems to work quite well.

Separation of proven information made by identified editors and hypothesis/opinion made by either known editors or pseudonyms might prove to be practical and also prudent from a legal standpoint. The information contained on the Wiki should be sourced, provable and thoroughly investigated before it is posted. This would seem to indicate that only known editors should be allowed to have access to that section. If access to the "wiki" is reserved for named individuals, then the pseudonyms can still provide information or evidence on the message board, which can later be sourced and investigated. This allows separation of "theories" and "hypothesis'" from actual sourced and investigated pieces of information. This might also be useful from a legal standpoint if a disclaimer is given on the message board concerning the validity of statements made there, as opposed to the wiki. If this possibility seems to be interesting, perhaps this should be split off into another section?

Cons

Some information may get lost in the process of sifting through the posts made to the message board.

Using a separate system with the message board being the only area accessible to pseudonymous contributors might make the area attractive to vandals and other attention-seeking individuals.

Do you vote for this?

Absolutely this is the way to go, although, as stated elsewhere, I think that a wiki can only work properly with controlled articles, where individual articles are controlled by someone who is an expert on the topic. Closed membership of everything is essential too. Invite only or approved by existing members/moderators Blissyu2 20:04, 11 October 2008 (PDT)

Blog, with "closed" team of editors

Pros

Continuity and quality of message

"Outsiders" can participate through lively Comment fields

Cons

Seems "closed" to collaboration

Limited set of creative thoughts and opinions

Linear display arranged by post date

Do you vote for this?

Suddenly leaning a lot more toward this, at least as a fresh beginning. If a wiki is spawned later in the process, that's fine, too. -- MyWikiBiz 08:57, 11 October 2008 (PDT)

Given recent developments and some other factors, I'm inclined to go this way right now as well.Paul Wehage 16:25, 11 October 2008 (PDT)

I think that a blog works too. Indeed, I think that all 3 of wiki, blog and forum can work in coordination happily. A blog can act like news. Maybe even a mailing list too to talk about important issues. Blissyu2 20:06, 11 October 2008 (PDT)

Mailing list

Pros

Wide reach for participation

Cons

Moderating rules could be challenging

Is the content history fully searchable?

Very limited format possibilities

Fills up participants' inboxes

Do you vote for this?

Name ideas

What might we call this site?

Web Of Lies

Collective Ignorance

Criticism of Crowdsourcing

Wrongs of the Internet

Rethinking Free Culture

Wikipedia Analysis (attn: the term "Wikipedia" is trademarked. Can we use this name? ) or WikiAnalysis

WikiReader (Americans will remember the "Weekly Reader" from Grade school … although this might not work for an international audience)

Center for Internet Criticism

Internet Ethics Report

Internet Concerns

The Folly of Crowds

CyberCulture Review

One of the reasons that "The Wikipedia Review" has been so successful as a concept is that the name is precise, yet neutral. A successful name will most likely have a neutral, objective(perhaps scientific), element which will not necessarily be seen as being negative towards the subject. It is perhaps more effective to try to remain objective in our criticism, as to let the objective evidence speak for itself.

Conversely, even a forum with a lousy name like "Wikback.com" was quite successful for the brief time before its owner began to censor content in haphazard and unethical ways.

Reserved domain names

• WikipediaMustDie.com
• GregoryKohs.com
• MimboJimbo.com
• MyWikiBiz.com