From WikiWorld

Jump to: navigation, search







====Discussion One:


Wikipedia founder says: Wiki sucks==== People are screwing up entries in WikiPedia, due to intention (vandalist or wanting to post their version of reality, rather then objective posts that Wikipedia owner agrees with), or due to the mass's own stupidity density (ie, 99% of the world are idiots). So, he's setting up a process wherein most people will be locked out, to stop messing up his WikiPedia pages.


This defeats the purpose of Wiki, of course, and the stated foundation of Wikipedia, but hey--- that's what happens when you want to let the world contribute, and the world actually contributes.

I found mention of his plans to lock out the general public at:

However, it will only be available for about a week or so, because it's a piece that Reuters is allowing them to mirror it. So seek out Reuters archives after the WikiWorld date 2005.08.12.

I am not surprised by this development. The WikiPedia core have been complaining that the general public are total idiots and polluting their precious data. They've had many spats over how to protect "high interest" topics like prominent Politicians and Media Figures. They've long argued for a vetting system of multi-tiered layers of higher authority and authenticity. In other words, they are completely reinventing KnowledgeManagement. Wiki is itself, a flat KnowledgeManagement system, in which the community involved operate under ConsensusByDefault. The day to day operations of a Wiki requires some members to act as WikiPolice, who restore prior versions of page information that might suffer WikiVandalism until the vandals get bored and leave. On low traffic sites like WikiWorld, this works fairly well, as the Wiki principle of only the interested participate, and they will eventually reach a consensus via discussion, debate, and finally, ConsensusByDefault. However, for an "open-source" effort like a world encyclopedia, the interested tend to outnumber the knowledgably interested, and eventually the knowledgable stop contributing. Then, that information devolves quickly into the local GroupThink's data, rather then true knowledge on that particular subject. Hence, WikiPedia's need of an authority system.


You didn't read the article, and have jumped to conclusions on the change on the Wikipedia. It is still more open than this wiki, which requires you to sign in. The only change for the moment is that non-registered users (that is, anonymous IPs) can not create new articles. They can stil edit already created articles.


Total and complete BS.

  1. This Wiki doesn't require you to become a registered user. Anyone can sign in with whatever handle they want, no registration information asked for. It is just a handle to put by the entry. Many of us that post on this Wiki are in fact professional information handlers and massagers, and we understand the challenges of a completely Open system (such as this Wiki), a completely closed system (ie, the Data Analyst Engine of the NASA's MSFC), and of everything in-between (ie, Everything2).
  1. WikiPedia has shown numberous times that ignorance and hate will always triumph over truth and fact in any uncontrolled system. That's why it is a complete and total failure as a factual source, and has been from day 1 (and that has been acknowledged multiple times by the founder of WikiPedia). Any open information system is always a factual failure if it is not limited to a community that is knowledgable on that information domain. This fact has been known since the first meeting of the Elders held by our first semi-intelligent ancestors. If you want to know why, it is simple--- there is an infinite supply of human stupidity, but a very limited supply of knowledge on any actual subject. When you allow the whole (wired) world to pass on their knowledge, that means that anyone that wants to put in their personal opinion can (and will on subjects that they have enough passion to bother about). What's this effect? The effect is that stupidity wins on anything the knowledgable community does not vigilantly maintain. The problem is that there is always more yahoos interested in things like "Moon landing never happened (was faked====)" then there is of knowledgable individuals that are interested in "Moon Landing". (Example: over 50% of NASA's own work force think that the Moon Landings were faked. That includes some actual astronauts!) Do you realize that any popular figure in the public mind have to have a special crew of WikiPedia watchers to protect their pages? Why do you think that is? That is because WikiPedia does not want to get sued for liable and that they don't want to demonstrate how often WikiPedia is incorrect to the world.


WikiPedia can be a good source on very esoteric entries, such as 'Pi', its approxiamate value, and its history. But when you wander onto subjects that are in dispute in the slightest in a community mind, then it is not facts and logic that win that competition for the entry, its the side that has more posting. Eventually, the minority posting side will stop. This is Wiki's inherent failure when scaled to give access to large numers --- Wiki is not a competition of facts or ideas. It is always a competition of numbers. When talking about something that the world believes, that isn't science or provable facts or plausibe theroms.

WikiPedia is going through the same processes as prior KnowledgeManagement systems. First, all information is equally valid from all sources. This invariably leads to bad/untrustworthy informtion. Evolution/Response: All knowledge entered by validated users is equally valid (with all sources only allowed to add or comment on existing entries). This invariable leads to bad/untrustworth information (happens constantly with WikiPedia, BTW). Evolution/Response: All validated users are given domains that they are considered authoritize over. Information may be accepted from any source or only comments and suggestions are allowed from non-authoritize sources, however all authoritize sources on a subject are considered superior/right and they cannot be editted/changed/disputed by non-authoritize sources. All authoritive sources are considered equal. This invariably leads to bad/untrustworthy information (happens frequently at Wikipedia, BTW). Why? Because not all "authoritive sources" are equal. Evolution/Response: Authoritize sources are further categorized as to their level of authority. This allows the more knowledgable authorities to correct less authoritive sources, but prevents less authoritive sources from altering their entries. Eventually, this will lead to bad/untrustworthy information, as no-one can know everything, mistakes happen, etc etc etc. There are 2 responses to this. Option A) Further refine your domains, categories, and user rankings of authority, or Option B) Move to a completely open system, accept that all information is bad, and let the experts fight it out in the court of public opionon posting (ie, Wiki).

Go check out the history of KnowledgeManagement. Go research the field, and see that they acknowledge that this is the pattern of managed information databases that have multiple "authoritive" sources. Database architects face this problem to a minor degree (if they have several inputs of first source or authoritive information).

WikiPedia is a very good tool for representing the common opinion on a subject. For matters that have a very small number of knowledge people that are concerned with the matter (ie, math, astrophysics, quantum physics), then the information may actually represent what authoritive sources would state. For subjects where people are more likely to have more emotional investment then actual information investment (ie, President Clinton, Prime Minister Blair, Ann Coulter, Alan Colmes, Howard Stern, Cher, etc) then the information is constantly contested, and requires special attention where whatever is posted could embarass the WikiPedia community.

It's just basic KnowledgeManagement. If you want to be a source of facts and not of opinions, you need a knowledgable community with a good review process by knowledable people, and even then, you'll still get errors. WikiPedia does not have this, and it never has, despite its claims. Indeed, its founder has acknowledged this fact repeatily, over the years. He has stated that this matter will be addressed as it becomes a significant problem to his goals. How can it be addressed? Again, go look at KnowledgeManagement. That is how it will be addressed. By continual limiting of who can posts on what subject, and when. That is the only choice that significantly works, despite all the trying.

Here at WikiWorld, we are currently a very small number. We have some understanding of who knows what. Furthermore, we often engage in debates, which further let us test each other's knowledge on subjects, as well as each others opinions, feelings, and logic/emotion chain to how they came to those conclusions. However, as a small community, it makes it easy for us to recognize who actually knows more on subjects then ourselves. That's how small Wikis function, how they can turn out the best answer for a particular issue or subject. But you loose that community function when you increase the size of the community. That's when Knowledge Warehouses have to turn to a system of limited authoritize sources. It's a poor substitue for the small community, but it is the only implementable processional answer that WE have managed to find to date. Well, not counting Market systems (ie, Futures Market).


Personal tools