User:KimvdLinde
Contents |
[edit] Why I left wikipedia
Wikipedia is an unwieldy system governed by the lowest denominator that can proclaim consensus. It essentially gives all the power to those that have the time to spend on petty disputes, drawn out decision making processes, and who know how to play the rules the best.
The key problem is that WP has a behavior based enforcement system. This has as an effect that content disputes can go on for ever as long as both sides can verify (WP:V) their claims with some reliable sources (WP:RS). Many of these intractable content disputes end with incivility and blocking of editors because of that, or with one party just quiting. In the latter case, this is often the person with the least amount of time to spend online. Unfortunately, experts are among those that do not want to spend ages on wikipedia, yet would have the most to offer with regard to quality content. The result, mediocrity rules.
Now that a ruling class has been established, consolidation of their rule is in order. Slowly but surely, rules that they deem correct are forced upon the whole of wikipedia at the expense of the content builders, who are far more often not interested in the governance intrigues by the ruling elite that has taken ownership of the policy and guideline pages. As a result, more and more of them will leave at the expense of wikipedia.
[edit] What could be done?
I think there are a few options. However, none of these will ever be implemented as they threaten the power of the ruling elite.
- Implement a quality control system for content. Not just something basic as flagged revisions (which is good against vandalism), but a system in which individuals who are using their real name and relevant credentials can flag which line or section they deem good (background colour green), questionable (background colour yellow-orange) or faulty (background colour red). If multiple editors disagree, mark it as such. This system would not impair the "Everybody can edit" philosophy, but does implement quality control.
- Implement a arbcom like system for content disputes. They can solve also disputes between flaggers.
The good news is that this content checking system can also be implemented as an independent website out of the reach of the wikipedia governance system.
[edit] The conundrum
As indicated above, the wikipedia community will never implement any form of content control because it flies in the face of the wishes of the ruling elite. It is therefore necessary to devise an alternative that does two things:
- It keeps wikipedia as is with all its flaws, the illusionary "everybody can edit" stance and policies and guidelines.
- It allows for an independent flagging of correct content.
[edit] The solution
Because wikipedia is open access, a independent website that puts an additional layer on top of wikipedia's content would be the way to go. The independent website can than mark (parts of) sentences, sections, or whole articles as described above. This website can set its own content policies and judge wikipedia content accordingly. Once (a part of) a specific revision has received quality evaluation, it will be the first content served to the readers. This allows to combine the best sections within various revisions. The existence of subsequent edits at wikipedia will be indicated in the text, and are available upon request.
