Wikipedysta:Zło 2
Z Wikipedii
Sie macie, ludzie!
|
Zło cierpliwe jest, |
"Do spotkania z Sowietami doszło do 22 września pod Kowlem. Oddziały sowieckie nie chciały przepuścić dywizji płk. Eplera przez miasto. Dalszy marsz na południe w kierunku Rumunii stał się niemożliwy. (...) Na północy nawiązano kontakt ze zgrupowaniem KOP gen. Orlika-Ruckemana, które walcząc z Sowietami, również podążało na Zachód (...)" - to tylko krótki cytat z cosobotniego dodatku do "Rzeczpospolitej" "Chwała oręża polskiego". Dodatek jest przygotowywany we współpracy z "Mówią wieki". Żaden "językoznawca" w rodzaju Ency, Julo, żaden "antyrewizjonista" pokroju Roo72 nie wmówi mi, że "sowiecki" jest w jakikolwiek sposób niewłaściwym określeniem tego, co sowieckie właśnie. Upieranie się przy przymiotniku "radziecki" w miejsce "sowiecki" ma dla mnie jednoznaczny wydźwięk - pozostawię to bez komentarza. |
Kilka uwag ([1]). Chyba długo tu miejsca nie zagrzeję, pójdę szkodzić gdzie indziej.
- Pamięci ofiar systemu: Halibuttowi, Kwietniowi, w1k0, Stotrowi i innym, których nicki uleciały z mojej pamięci, ale dokonania wciąż pozostają w sercu.
(...) Wikipedia quickly showed itself to have a wonderful system for producing massive amounts of reasonably good content quickly. But that does not mean that, as an encyclopedia and as a community, it is free of serious and endemic problems:
- The community does not enforce its own rules effectively or consistently. Consequently, administrators and ordinary participants alike are able essentially to act abusively with impunity, which begets a never-ending cycle of abuse.
- Widespread anonymity leads to a distinguishable problem, namely, the attractiveness of the project to people who merely want to cause trouble, or who want to undermine the project, or who want to change it into something that it is avowedly not--in other words, the troll problem.
- Many now complain that the leaders of the community have become insular: it has become increasingly difficult for people who are not already part of the community to get fully on board, regardless of their ability or qualifications.
- This arguably dysfunctional community is extremely off-putting to some of the most potentially valuable contributors, namely, academics. Furthermore, there is no special place for academics, so that they can contribute in a way they feel comfortable with. As a result, it seems likely that the project will never escape its amateurism. Indeed, one might say that Wikipedia is committed to amateurism. In an encyclopedia, there's something wrong with that.
Can Wikipedia recover from these problems? The first step to recovery is admitting that you have a problem in the first place. Wikipedia's most passionate defenders, if they react at all, will probably do nothing but explain why I am mistaken in each of these criticisms. There are some active Wikipedians who are able admit at least some of these criticisms. But could the Wikipedia community as a whole admit any of them, with enough force actually to do anything about them? I am now, I fully admit, an outsider looking in on the project. But I do still watch the project a fair bit, follow the news about it, and read mailing list posts and events on the wiki. So I know of course that there are movements afoot to reform Wikipedia in various ways. But I see little evidence that the community, whatever its discontents, will go so far as to admit the problems I've listed.
The failure to recognize these serious problems is a reflection of the fact that, at bottom, they are political problems. Like all open communities online, Wikipedia's community is self-selecting, and its policies have determined who stays and who leaves (or is driven away). For this reason, online communities tend to become rather conservative in their attitudes toward their own systems, and Wikipedia is certainly no different. So it is not surprising that, as anyone who is aware of how Wikipedia works knows, the changes made to the system recently have been mostly cosmetic, and even the bolder of these changes have little chance of solving the problems I outlined earlier. The first step to solving a problem is to admit that it's a problem; and much of the Wikipedia community will not admit the problems I've listed, unless they have a massive collective change of heart. And, I think, that is very unlikely ever to happen. In fact, you could say that I have waited for several years for it to happen, and it never has.
