User:John R. Brews/WP

Something about Wikipedia

 * See also: Criticism of Wikipedia, WP is failing, Expert retention, Thoughts on WP

Wikipedia is amazingly successful in producing a variety of articles that, while not authoritative, often contain a lot of interesting information the reader can use to expand their knowledge of a subject. It can be fun to contribute to WP, fun to learn from others, and fun to put together an entertaining and useful article. It also can be very exasperating if the editors contributing to an article you want to work on are not interested in these pursuits, but think of WP as on-line scrimmage, or as a mirror for preening, or as an encyclopedia intended to fit their personal criteria.

One might think that unproductive behavior on WP would be held in check by the Arbitration Committee, but so far this committee has a zero success rate in remedying systemic issues, or even in identifying them. In fact, they spend next to zero time considering critical matters. They are, however, very diligent in applying bans and blocks upon individual editors to cut down clamor, whatever its underlying cause or implications.

Such actions frequently resemble killing the messenger, that is, turning off safety alarms because they are annoying, or Three-Mile Island syndrome, that is, hearing the alarm but having no idea what to do about it. So a participant on WP must be prepared to live with this environment. You will have periods of fun, learning, success, and satisfaction, counter-weighted by other periods of distress and dismay and, more unfortunately, nausea. These last will be reduced if you simply refuse to participate in arbitration ‘hearings’, beyond a stating an initial position. These actions are about shutting down noise, so the less noise you make, the better. They also are tar babies, and residual attacks and arbitration follow you 'round like gnats in the Quebec woods. Even expired sanctions can be revisited years later as a backdoor means to haul Administrators into a situation that otherwise could never be brought forward.

Here is my succinct summary of the situation:
 * Involving ArbCom is like asking a three-year old hurrying to the bathroom to discuss Aristotle. Illumination is much less likely than getting pissed on.

Another analogy to ArbCom at work: "You visit the doctor because you cut your left hand: the doctor amputates your right arm and voilà you can't cut yourself again. By the way, the cut causing the visit isn't examined, nevermind treated!"

So, smile. If you can't tolerate WP's blind and abusive administration, depart. If you stay, you must work within a severely compromised and dictatorial system that is for sure a rule of men, not laws, where salus populi is not a concept.
 * “it is increasingly difficult to enjoy contributing to Wikipedia unless you are part of the site's inner core of editors.”
 * Quoting Ed H Chi: Augmented Social Cognition Research
 * “"In general, the biggest problem I have with the editors [that is, administrators] is their attitude," he says. "They say: 'We're not going to explain how we make decisions, we basically talk amongst ourselves.'”
 * Quoting Aaron Swartz

In sum, unless one ingratiates oneself with the command, you're in for it. This situation is not improving, nor does it appear to be reversible.

Experience on WP
Some of the illustrations I've added are above. They show my interests are in circuits, devices, and physics. I've also originated several articles that remain in their initial state so far: Pole splitting, Return ratio, Signal-flow graph, Nullor, Ampere's force law, Bivector; and completely rewritten Step response, Current mirror, Active load, Free space, Widlar current source, Space archaeology and Value judgment. The Wikipedia editing and posting environment is really nice to work with. Finding out how things work is not so easy, and editors help here a lot. I've had some run-ins with editors, some constructive and civilized, and I am most happy to acknowledge the editing assistance of User:Rogerbrent. I'm also happy to report a happy collaboration with User:Sbyrnes321 on the article Faraday's law of induction, which proved to be a rather unique example of cooperative evolution.

This romantic epoch ended in late October 2009 with my banning from WP at the behest of a number of disgruntled editors aided by an ArbCom proceeding I thought was misguided, ill-informed, and arbitrary. I stepped into a hornets' nest and the ArbCom beekeepers figured my foot was the problem, not the hornets. Amputation followed. Attempts to discuss guidelines for avoidance of such brouhaha's in future led to broader restrictions, indicating further the limited benevolence and acuity of WP administrators. Initially I thought this proceeding was a shockingly inept exception, but in fact it was entirely ordinary, apart from the unimpeded violations of WP:Civil, a bit unusual, and the acceptance of unvarnished slander, which usually takes the milder form of acceptance of say-so with cavalier disregard for evidence.

Observations
The mode of administration of WP is identified as at variance with all lessons learned in the history of governance.

A major goal of ArbCom has become respect for ArbCom, regardless. They follow Kant:
 * “nothing can have a value other than that determined for it by the law. The law-making, which determines all value, must for this reason have a dignity, that is, unconditional and incomparable worth.”

but turn this idea upside down, to request respect for the lawmakers, rather than for the law making. From the administration viewpoint, command requires respect, not the commands.

Clamor usually is silenced expediently, which means shut down of the minority regardless of majority misbehavior, and regardless of WP policies and guidelines. That way impacts the fewest editors and garners easy support. Here is my succinct summary:


 * If gunshots are too noisy, it's not the hunters, it's the ducks. No ducks, no noise.



As a rule, sanctions and remedies are proposed that are deliberately vague. Ostensibly, that is done to allow adjustment of remedies so the punishment will fit the crime. In practice though, it takes the Humpty Dumpty form:
 * “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master that’s all.”

In short, the actual wording of a remedy or sanction is not only meaningless, but deceptive. (I am taking Humpty Dumpty out of context: he was a mathematician, and of course he could define his words as he wished inside of his axiomatic constructions. But that is not the WP environment.) The real meaning of a remedy is that you are on notice that any action you undertake can be brought before ArbCom, regardless of its nature, and claimed to be a violation. (In fact, one's mere presence in a hearing might be viewed as a disruption because you are "taking up the administrators' time", or as the police chief says in Casablanca, you're one of the "usual suspects"!) You yourself cannot predict on any basis whether any particular sanction will be deemed to have been violated, nor what reprisals will be enacted.

In fact, when a case is brought to ArbCom, or an appeal is made, one should be aware that ArbCom has no responsibility to address the actual case or appeal brought, but will take the opportunity to act according to their whim upon their personal perception of whatever they choose to consider, and the hearing on these extraneous matters will be primarily between ArbCom members with no obligation to explore beyond their prejudices. Here's a quote: “ArbCom retains jurisdiction over the cases it hears. This may not always be clear, but anyone who fails to resolve matters at the community level and comes to ArbCom is running the risk of not getting the case or result they wanted. We define the scope of the case and the possible remedies, and have wide latitude to impose what we see fit.” This understatement should be taken very seriously as a straightforward declaration that any expectation of due process is delusional, and ArbCom will do whatever they want, unconstrained by any consideration whatsoever, WP welfare and guidelines included.

One basic problem with arbitration on WP is that the issues are unnecessarily complex. A baseball umpire just watches that rules are observed; an umpire doesn't critique the game; an umpire isn't an expert player or coach. Unfortunately, as things now work, instead of refereeing with clear, general guidelines, administrators are forcing compliance with piecemeal, case-by-case invented rules of expedience, nothing better. They are in 'way over their heads, making decisions 'way beyond their competence. Originating in folie des grandeurs and chutzpah, administrators adjudicate where they haven't a clue. They expect respect for themselves despite their indifference to the very goals empowering them. The resulting interminable, muddy actions; unfortunately backed by blind, stubborn, stupid support for dismal decisions; corrodes what remains of a collaborative atmosphere on WP.