Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-05-02/In the media

Discuss this story

Bureaucracy

The bureaucracy news item is worth reading. Wikipedia has become increasingly bureaucratized over the years (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a bureaucracy), but we still seem to collectively insist that it isn't. All you need to do is look at a deletion discussion at AfD or elsewhere; unique arguments are rarely brought up, replaced with linkspam to whatever WP: pages a person can find to support their argument. Honestly, I don't think that is much of a problem myself - I think the current system, particularly for notability, works quite well. People reference the relevant guidelines but IAR can come into play when needed. But there is some benefit to being honest with ourselves, if for no other reason than making it easier for new people to become involved by being straightforward with them about how to contribute. Just some random musings I've had on the topic. Ajraddatz (talk) 04:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel the same way about Wikipedia's "bureaucraticness". Though the system works quite well in a lot of ways (especially notability), I think it's pretty important to realize that Wikipedia really is a bureaucracy at this point. In my experience, this is most aggravating when someone opposes to changing a guideline because said guideline clearly states that it's a guideline. I think we're doing alright. ~Mable (chat) 05:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Calling Wikipedia a bureaucracy or not usually isn't relevant unless in context. Wikipedia's bureaucracy is usually beneficial in that it functions as an expedient to complex discussions: given the precedents established in policies and guidelines we avoid having to argue everything ab initio, ad nauseam (albeit at the cost of implicitly requiring users to learn or look up said precedents). In theory, Wikipedia is relatively democratic, in that anyone can propose new precedents, or changes to existing ones, by seeking consensus to add, change, or remove a policy or guideline. In practice, Wikipedia's body of precedent is largely static; this raises the question: is it a result of a sensible, stable body of precedent that few care to contest, or is it, putatively, bureaucratic oligarchy? {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 18:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - A fascinating question to be sure, and I'm not sure how one could go about answering it. You also touch on a point which I believe the article looks at (though it might have been a different article), that most of these precedents are established by a very small subset of users. For example, the local guidelines on username usurpation were established through a discussion between 11 users. Even more recent discussions, such as the current one to establish the new 'page mover' usergroup, only has the participation of some 100 users. There are 131,163 individual accounts that have edited Wikipedia in the last 30 days. Can Wikipedia be democratic without widespread participation? In theory there are no formal barriers to entry, but there are many informal ones, including technical knowledge and a desire to participate in the meta-level of the project. So I think that there are two answers to your question, based on which group of individuals you look at. When considering the "politically-active" portion of the community, it's probably the former - that the current guidelines have established a consensus which most users agree with, and thus which they commonly reference. But when looking at the "politically-inactive" supermajority of the community, it's hard to say. It is worth noting, however, that various studies of politically-inactive groups within countries show that they tend to a) favour the status quo and b) feel that their own voice would not make a difference, so I'm not trying to suggest that the politically-inactive portion of the community here would be suggesting any revolutionary change. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I figure "bureaucracy" does not precisely describe our position or even our direction, because nobody in particular is in charge of most things. Bureaucracy has someone to manage this particular movie house, others assigned to selling tickets, taking tickets, selling popcorn, pointing the way to seats, scraping the gum off seats, running the projector, bringing the film-can back to the distributor, and so forth. Most of us just flit around doing whatever needs doing. This means, some things that ought to be done, aren't. Our political system is similar. It's complex, weird, boring and optional. Thus, few participate in rule making, electing the few who are in charge of something, and so forth. Egalitarian? Of course not. Yes, many thousands are equally allowed to participate, but we don't equally know, or care to know. That's why only a small minority, an elite, actually do it all. Dreadful disappointment? Not really, unless you expected to combine equality, quality, and complexity. Jim.henderson (talk) 19:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Lets be honest, we all know who the corrupt and unblockable Wikioligarchs are. So keep your head down and work silently, unless you want to get boot.--Catlemur (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree with the article. Bureaucrats don't have nearly as much power to abuse as suggested. --NaBUru38 (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the researchers really understand what a bureaucracy is and/or are throwing the term around for shock effect. The finding that Wikipedia's core norms have been sustained is certainly interesting and important, but the light-touch governance of Wikipedia is far from being a bureaucracy as normally defined (most internet forums have much more active governance arrangements). Could it not be the case that people are self-selecting to initially participate and then choose to remain active in Wikipedia because they like its norms, leading to a self-supporting effect? The interesting message from the research for me is how Wikipedia has managed to keep its core norms with so little active governance. Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Filesharing

"What's crazy, then, is that a bunch of more-or-less random editors who happen to want to be the piracy police are dictating the means of access for an entire population of people"

If Wikimedia editors don't do that, we would have trouble with authorities. It's not our fault that it's illegal to share copyrighted files. --NaBUru38 (talk) 13:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Too few cooks in Wikipedia ...

I added the wikilink for Philippa Glanville - is there one for the "Wiki-Food and (mostly) Women Project" mentioned in the article? DuncanHill (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I looked around for a wiki page on the project and couldn't find one. --Andreas JN 466 08:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OBE?

"Getting on Wikipedia should be easier than getting an OBE..."

Maybe... if people step up and do the work see 2009 New Year Honours to get some idea of the scale. If every member of the commentariat wrote as much on Wikipedia as they do about Wikipedia, it would help enormously.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]