95
edits
Changes
MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Tuesday May 14, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to searchTalk:Criticism of crowdsourcing (view source)
Revision as of 15:12, 12 October 2008
, 15:12, 12 October 2008Main issues
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)
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)
== Main issues ==
I would suggest a start date of November 5th, because it is Guy Fawkes Day, and also the date that the original Wikipedia Review started. Since the current WR management are so keen to hide WR's true history, it would be good to remind them of this, that the people in control now had nothing to do with it when it started, and indeed have destroyed the memories of the people that worked so hard to make it what it is today.
Let's look at some good and bad aspects of Wikipedia Review today:
=== Good aspects of WR today: ===
* It is a web forum - this encourages discussion, people's posts stay up for ages, can be referred to, there is a database, and you don't have to search for ages for a link to try to figure out who said what (as would be the case in a wiki).
* The web forum is split into several sub forums - this encourages things to stay on topic, means that all discussion is welcome (except for illegal stuff), just that everything has its place.
* There are private sub forums - it is essential for moderators to discuss sensitive issues privately, and also it is important to have members-only "Tar Pit" and even the Anti-Cabal forum (later changed names, etc) so that people could discuss things that they didn't want pro-Wikipedia people to be able to read.
* Membership is heavily restricted - you need to have a non-free e-mail address to register, and each individual applicant needs to be approved by moderators. This takes moderators ages to do, but it saves a lot of hassle with bad applicants coming in without being checked.
* Real full names of non-public figures are not allowed - on a web forum, having to have every claim proved to the nth degree is tedious and ruins the free discussion process. Not mentioning people's full names prevents frivolous law suits and also encourages free and open discussion.
=== Bad aspects of WR today: ===
* They spend way too much time discussing themselves - in spite of all the sub forums, still almost every thread gets dominated by people discussing whether WR has a right to say this. This just dominates discussion and ruins the actual aim of the site. The most obvious way to stop this is to not allow people to enter if they are not in some ways opposed to Wikipedia. You can be mostly pro-Wikipedia but have ideas to improve it, but you shouldn't be totally pro-Wikipedia. You also shouldn't be anti-WR. These people, quite simply, should be banned. WR has, over its history, tolerated far too many people of this ilk, who would not be tolerated on Wikipedia or anywhere else for that matter (other than troll sites, who like drama). This creates drama, period. You can't always tell who is secretly who, so quite simply just as soon as they start being pro-Wikipedia or anti-WR then get rid of them. Maybe give them a few chances then go.
* There is too much interpersonal conflict - once again, this is actually the same as the first issue. Wikipedia fanbois claims that it is because the people were banned from Wikipedia, but this is actually rubbish. The conflict begins by Wikipedia fanbois themselves. They come in, stir up trouble, and then that leads to people fighting amongst themselves. Sure, so people disagree, but these kinds of arguments are not all that heated and can be resolved easily enough.
* There is too much censorship - this gets back to the problem of the site being taken over. When Selina took over, she wanted to hide her guilt, so wiped lots of stuff. She kept wiping stuff and kept wiping stuff, and kept doing bad stuff to hide it all. Somey, at least since he "bought" the site from Selina (who never actually owned it in the first place), has done much the same thing. That I could go from over 6,000 posts to around 4,500 in a week after "leaving" is pretty disgraceful. That there used to be over 1,000 threads of people referring to me as owner, and suddenly there are 0, is censorship. This wasn't the first, nor was it the last, issue of censorship. Obviously, there needs to be rules to prevent such things. Things should only be deleted for legal reasons - period. Anything else should be moved to a more appropriate place. Things wiped for legal reasons should be kept in a "trash can" for a week or so until analysed by all moderators. This is actually a rule on Wikipedia Review now, but Somey and Selina choose to ignore it, for power/ego reasons.
* Good people have been destroyed - it doesn't matter whether you like someone or not. People who support the site, support its aims, and are doing their best to make it a good place should stay. The founder of the site was banned from their own site, for heaven's sakes. 5 of the 6 people who helped to make the new site at its own domain name were banned, all by the 6th person. Over half of the administrators of the site are now banned. Over half of the total bans on the site were to people who were former administrators and founders of the site. This is disgusting any way that you look at it. Rather than getting rid of trouble makers, they have in effect encouraged trouble makers at the expense of people who are making the site good. No site should do this. Sure, so we can say it is wrong for Wikipedia to ban people who criticise them, but what justification does WR have for banning people who support WR in all ways? It shouldn't happen anywhere. It creates so many other problems.
* The history is dishonest - Wikipedia Review actually started on Guy Fawkes Day, 2005. Igor Alexander actually started it. 6 people actually moved it to its domain name, including Igor Alexander. Selina was one of the 6, but was never actually meant to be an administrator. Selina was never owner, legal or effective. I was the owner. Blu Aardvark was meant to be the chief administrator. Selina was simply the coder. Lots of lies have been told about this. So deep are the lies that today some people are believing that Poetlister, who wasn't banned from Wikipedia until 2 months after WR began, is actually behind all of WR! Keeping a real history is important. The thing is that the whole way through I actually did keep a real history of WR, and kept updating it every month or so, yet *STILL IT IS DISPUTED*. How ridiculous is that? Something which was repeated in a thread every single month is still disputed by people. My being owner is today still seriously disputed by some people, in spite of thousands of threads, not just on Wikipedia Review, but on Wikipedia and throughout the net, by all sorts of people, for 2 whole years, right up until the day that I was "banned". I have even printed out original e-mails with full headers that say exactly what they said when I bought it, yet still some people dispute it! I mean seriously guys. Keeping an honest history is important to the site, and to any site. If you don't keep an honest history, then people can just say whatever they like, and it all just looks stupid. How dumb does the Wikipedia Review article look on Wikipedia when they don't even have a start date or the names of the people responsible for its creation? Even ED has that! How dumb is it that Encyclopaedia Dramatica is more reliable than Wikipedia Review?
* It is hypocritical - On a lot of issues, Wikipedia Review is very hypocritical. In one breath they complain about truth changing, but in the next breath they censor posts. In one breath they complain about people not saying who they are, but in the next breath the person running it has never said their real name or who they really are. And so forth. It is a real issue.
What you think are the real issues are up to you. But you need to think through what is really wrong with the site, and what can really be done to change what is wrong. Don't get it wrong! For example, if you make it real names only, you won't get too many people. Make it anything other than a forum, especially if you don't have a forum element, and people won't go. Make it too much different, and people just won't go.
Be careful if you do make a wiki though, as they need to be thought out well. Encyclopaedia Dramatica is actually a good way to run a wiki, software wise, and is probably the best place in terms of discouraging stalking and the like that I have seen. Use that model as a basis for any wiki you have, rather than Wikipedia's, but overall think that through clearly too. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 08:12, 12 October 2008 (PDT)
