Changes

'''WHY WIKIPEDIA IS DOOMED:  THE SIX ROTTEN PILLARS OF WIKIPEDIA'''<ref>Originally appeared in Wikipedia Review, in [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20830 this] thread by the anonymous contributor Cedric the cat.  It has been modified somewhat to reflect the context</ref>

<big>'''WHY WIKIPEDIA IS DOOMED:  THE SIX ROTTEN PILLARS OF WIKIPEDIA'''</big><ref>Originally appeared in Wikipedia Review, in [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=20830 this] thread by the anonymous contributor Cedric the cat.  It has been modified somewhat to reflect the context</ref>

It is becoming clear to even the most fervent wiki-apologists that something is really wrong with the current state of Wikipedia.  A number of WP users have complained that editor conflicts have definitely been on the rise since 2004, and that the last two years on WP have been particularly bad.  This is cited as an ever growing distraction from “building the encyclopedia”.  In fact, edit wars over particular articles and other editor conflicts do appear to be growing at an ever increasing rate.  In the early days of Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents (“WP:ANI”, WP’s drama center, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1 founded in December, 2004]), it usually took around one week to fill an archive.  Now archives are filled about every two days.

It is becoming clear to even the most fervent wiki-apologists that something is really wrong with the current state of [[Wikipedia]].  A number of Wikipedia users have complained that editor conflicts have definitely been on the rise since 2004, and that the last two years on Wikipedia have been particularly bad.  This is cited as an ever growing distraction from “building the encyclopedia”.  In fact, edit wars over particular articles and other editor conflicts do appear to be growing at an ever increasing rate.  In the early days of Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents (“WP:ANI”, Wikipedia’s drama center, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1 founded in December, 2004]), it usually took around one week to fill an archive.  Now archives are filled about every two days.

So why all the drama?  There are a number of reasons, all of which have been discussed here before at Wikipedia Review, and at some length.  The most basic causes I identify as

So why all the drama?  There are a number of reasons, all of which have been discussed here before at [[Wikipedia Review]], and at some length.  The most basic causes I identify as

<center>'''THE SIX ROTTEN PILLARS OF WIKIPEDIA'''</center>

<big><center>'''THE SIX ROTTEN PILLARS OF WIKIPEDIA'''</center></big>

== 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.

What is chance of such a salubrious reform being enacted?  Absolute zero.  The reason for this simple enough: the “sole founder” and “God-King” of Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales, says so.  His 2001  pharaonic fiat reads [http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles&oldid=75340 in pertinent part:]

What is chance of such a salubrious reform being enacted?  Absolute zero.  The reason for this simple enough: the “sole founder” and “God-King” of Wikipedia, [[Criticism of Jimmy Wales|Jimmy Wales]], says so.  His 2001  pharaonic fiat reads [http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles&oldid=75340 in pertinent part:]

<blockquote>"You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred.</blockquote>

<blockquote>"You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred.</blockquote>

== “NEUTRALITY” (“NPOV”) OF ARTICLES ==   

== “NEUTRALITY” (“NPOV”) OF ARTICLES ==   

According to [[Jimmy Wales]], the most sacred of all the sacred principles of Wikipedia is [http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles&oldid=75340 “NPOV”], i.e., “Neutral Point of View”, of articles for “the preservation of our shared vision” and “for a culture of thoughtful diplomatic honesty” (whatever the hell ''that'' means).  While on first read this may seem to make a fair amount of good sense, on close examination, it is about the most confusing and drama-inducing formulation imaginable.

According to Wales, the most sacred of all the sacred principles of Wikipedia is [http://nostalgia.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles&oldid=75340 “NPOV”], i.e., “Neutral Point of View”, of articles for “the preservation of our shared vision” and “for a culture of thoughtful diplomatic honesty” (whatever the hell ''that'' means).  While on first read this may seem to make a fair amount of good sense, on close examination, it is about the most confusing and drama-inducing formulation imaginable.

“Neutral” in regular English (as opposed to English wikispeak) usually denotes nonalignment; taking none of any of the contending viewpoints as to a subject.  But on Wikipedia, as with so many other common words, “neutral” has a rather different meaning.  The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANeutral_point_of_view&diff=244018337&oldid=243690817 official policy] starts off the definition of “NPOV” as follows:

“Neutral” in regular English (as opposed to English wikispeak) usually denotes nonalignment; taking none of any of the contending viewpoints as to a subject.  But on Wikipedia, as with so many other common words, “neutral” has a rather different meaning.  The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANeutral_point_of_view&diff=244018337&oldid=243690817 official policy] starts off the definition of “NPOV” as follows:

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.

There is never any thought of flood control for a “constructive editor”, no matter how clearly obsessive they become.  Not unless or until that editor has become unmutual, or simply too great an embarrassment, because of violations of policy (be they written or unwritten), in which case they are blocked or banned.  Generally, one can either edit in an unlimited fashion (until they drop), or not all.  Of course, has to be noted here that those editors who are better known, who have been deemed “constructive” and “productive” in the past, and who are admins or a friend of an admin (i.e., “power users”), are likely to be judged far more leniently as compared to less well known and less obsessive editors who have no friends in the Wikipedia power structure.  To those “power users” with personality disorders or addictive personalities, this merely serves as an invitation to delve more deeply into pathological behavior;  an invitation rarely, if ever, declined.

There is never any thought of flood control for a “constructive editor”, no matter how clearly obsessive they become.  Not unless or until that editor has become unmutual, or simply too great an embarrassment, because of violations of policy (be they written or unwritten), in which case they are blocked or banned.  Generally, one can either edit in an unlimited fashion (until they drop), or not all.  Of course, has to be noted here that those editors who are better known, who have been deemed “constructive” and “productive” in the past, and who are admins or a friend of an admin (i.e., “power users”), are likely to be judged far more leniently as compared to less well known and less obsessive editors who have no friends in the Wikipedia power structure.  To those “power users” with personality disorders or addictive personalities, this merely serves as an invitation to delve more deeply into pathological behavior;  an invitation rarely, if ever, declined.

The exploitation of the addiction or mental illness of certain users has bad effects other than the deepening psychological harm to the afflicted user.  It also has the affect of harming the reputation of Wikipedia, by giving the increasingly common impression that “the lunatics have taken over the asylum”.  This in turn has prompted a number of actually constructive users to leave Wikipedia in disgust as they see the favoritism extended toward certain users who are clearly disturbed, and who also are clearly pushing an agenda, or have little idea what they are talking about.  And when the afflicted user also happens to be an admin, the potential for abusive use of admin powers is very often realized.  In essence, such admins are both victims and victimizers.

The exploitation of the addiction or mental illness of certain users has bad effects other than the deepening psychological harm to the afflicted user.  It also has the effect of harming the reputation of Wikipedia, by giving the increasingly common impression that “the lunatics have taken over the asylum”.  This in turn has prompted a number of actually constructive users to leave Wikipedia in disgust as they see the favoritism extended toward certain users who are clearly disturbed, and who also are clearly pushing an agenda, or have little idea what they are talking about.  And when the afflicted user also happens to be an admin, the potential for abusive use of admin powers is very often realized.  In essence, such admins are both victims and victimizers.

However, merely having an internet addiction or mental illness alone does not give a user an “inside track” to becoming a “power user”.  If one is afflicted, but also expresses politically incorrect opinions or fails to show a proper eagerness to play the game, that user can quickly find themself isolated, if not blocked or banned.  Also, I would ''never'' suggest as a reform that Wikipedia start to offer some sort counseling program to troubled users.  The very thought of a psychological counseling program at Wikipedia is only very slightly less horrifying than [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/09/wikipedia_letters wiki-surgery].

However, merely having an internet addiction or mental illness alone does not give a user an “inside track” to becoming a “power user”.  If one is afflicted, but also expresses politically incorrect opinions or fails to show a proper eagerness to play the game, that user can quickly find themself isolated, if not blocked or banned.  Also, I would ''never'' suggest as a reform that Wikipedia start to offer some sort counseling program to troubled users.  The very thought of a psychological counseling program at Wikipedia is only very slightly less horrifying than [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/09/wikipedia_letters wiki-surgery].

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>

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”.