Editing Netizenship/Wikipedia
From Bibliotheca Anonoma
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
''It's a good idea - but it only works in practice, not in theory.''--Common community joke | ''It's a good idea - but it only works in practice, not in theory.''--Common community joke | ||
Have you ever looked something up or checked something on Wikipedia (please don't call it "wiki")? Of course you have. | Have you ever looked something up or checked something on Wikipedia (please don't call it "wiki")? Of course you have. But did you know that just under what you are reading lies a world of discussion about what Wikipedia should say, and that this process is largely driven by the editors and contributors of Wikipedia themselves? That's what makes it unique and worthy of studying. | ||
Wikipedia stands alone on the list of most-visited websites as one which is governed by its users and contributors. The causes of this powerful exception are almost as unique: an origin in the open-source software movement, an obvious goal, a strong resultant sense of purpose, and strict standards of ethics and conduct. | |||
'''Wikipedia is fundamentally an anarchy'''; its first rule is [[wp:WP:IAR|ignore all rules]]: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Over time, democratic and meritocratic elements have been added to its governance as they have been found necessary. Over all of this stretches a constitutional monarch: the Wikimedia Foundation. | '''Wikipedia is fundamentally an anarchy'''; its first rule is [[wp:WP:IAR|ignore all rules]]: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Over time, democratic and meritocratic elements have been added to its governance as they have been found necessary. Over all of this stretches a constitutional monarch: the Wikimedia Foundation. | ||
Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
Wikipedia does not have firm rules; it has '''policies''' and '''guidelines''' which are enacted, changed, and interpreted by '''consensus'''. Consensus requires less than unanimity but more than a simple majority vote; it requires that all legitimate concerns weighing on the question be appropriately considered<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus</ref>. (Even so, participants in major discussions will comment in "support", "oppose", or "neutral" sections, and number their statements within it, but they will still take care to call their statements "!votes", pronounced "not-votes"; their comments in favor or against are ''not votes'', and "Support" or "Oppose" accompanied by no reasoning or just "per [for the same reasons as] <another user>" is frowned upon.) As such, it is notoriously difficult to enact or change a major policy or guideline. | Wikipedia does not have firm rules; it has '''policies''' and '''guidelines''' which are enacted, changed, and interpreted by '''consensus'''. Consensus requires less than unanimity but more than a simple majority vote; it requires that all legitimate concerns weighing on the question be appropriately considered<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus</ref>. (Even so, participants in major discussions will comment in "support", "oppose", or "neutral" sections, and number their statements within it, but they will still take care to call their statements "!votes", pronounced "not-votes"; their comments in favor or against are ''not votes'', and "Support" or "Oppose" accompanied by no reasoning or just "per [for the same reasons as] <another user>" is frowned upon.) As such, it is notoriously difficult to enact or change a major policy or guideline. | ||
The routine day-to-day work is also carried on by consensus, but these are strictly local and specific consensuses that cannot in any sense override the general and global consensus that formed the policies and guidelines. '''Content disputes''' (relating to the 2nd pillar) are decided by consensus on the talk page of the article. Citations to policies and guidelines, which the participants are powerless to change, are the order of the day in such talks. | The routine day-to-day work is also carried on by consensus, but these are strictly local and specific consensuses that cannot in any sense override the general and global consensus that formed the policies and guidelines. '''Content disputes''' (relating to the 2nd pillar) are decided by consensus on the talk page of the article. Citations to policies and guidelines, which the participants are powerless to change, are the order of the day in such talks. | ||
==Democracy== | ==Democracy== | ||
Wikipedia contains ''democratic'' elements. | Wikipedia contains ''democratic'' elements. | ||
It holds elections for an '''Arbitration Committee'''. The Arbitration Committee consists of 15 members, half of whom are elected every other year (though before 2010, a third of them were elected every third year). The Arbitration Committee '''has no power over content disputes'''. Rather, its powers extend to banning problematic users from editing the site as a whole | It holds elections for an '''Arbitration Committee'''. The Arbitration Committee consists of 15 members, half of whom are elected every other year (though before 2010, a third of them were elected every third year). The Arbitration Committee '''has no power over content disputes'''. Rather, its powers extend to banning problematic users from editing the site as a whole, from specified topics, or from interacting with users they have problems with. |