Whoops; I apparently had a poorly configured upgrade of my weblog software, and it was eating comments. If you commented, please repost.

Jason,

An "A+" for you on this essay, too.

I can't decide which essay I like more, this new one or your previous one about Wikipedia:

"The Great Failure of Wikipedia"
http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/000060.html

Thank you for honestly sharing your thoughts -- and for educating the public as to the sad facts about
Wikipedia.

Sincerely,
SummerFR

PS I also think this point you made, below, is extremely important. I hope EVERYONE will pay close
attention:

"And all of this wouldn't be important at all, if we didn't start to see the Wikipedia definitions propogating throughout the internet, being something you get automatically on a lookup from Trillian or Yahoo using it as a way to get facts. That goes beyond scary.. it borders on negligent."

Wikipedia is just one corner of an increasingly amazingly gigantic web of information. The statistics are astounding; Wikipedia alone has far more information than did the entire Internet not so many years ago.

Clearly Wikipedia succeeds at some things & fails at others. I don't see why there should be any controversy about it, except that various people have various stakes in it being somehow more or less than it actually is.

I personally enjoy the aesthetic of Wikipedia articles. They have a distinct voice to them. It's not the voice of an Authoritative And Comprehensive Encyclopedia, to be sure, but it's not just arbitrary rambling & opinion, either. Wikipedia articles have a pervasive tone of *compromise*, especially on contentious pages. Things are written in a way that gives hints at all of the various wacky views on the subject, while staying noncommittal.

You're surely correct that there's been lots of pointless bickering & revert wars & all sorts of other nonsense surrounding the Swastika article-- but in my glancing at the edit history I can't help but feel like the overall *course* of the thing is that it's been gradually becoming an increasingly useful & interesting article.

Is it the best possible article about the history of Swastikas? No. Should it be deified, tattooed on the insides of our eyelids, required reading for all schoolchildren? No. But-- is the world better for having it than if it didn't exist at all? Yes, I think it is.

Wikipedia's only a failure when compared to some unreasonable goal-- answering everyone's questions about everything, eliminating human ignorance forever, resolving the Ultimate Truth of Things once and for all. It's perfectly successful at being a nice fun little informative website.

<3

Mungo, you speak with the blissful hum of the consumer, delighted his product comes to him with such apparent ease, aware there might be controversy in the distance and fretting ever-so-slightly before returning to your happy place. That is fine.

My issues with Wikipedia were always procedural, and have turned a little bit concerned because people are starting to use Wikipedia as an academic source and point of information without being aware how arbitrary and problematic its setup is. The response of "well, they shouldn't do THAT" is not sufficient, since work with Trillian and Yahoo are ensuring this problematic architecture is being obfuscated.

Again, as I said in my posting, I do not dispute that the final product seems fine and is very likely fine for people to use, but it comes at an enormous toll of time and effort to achieve what it does achieve. Assuming people take any time to type, the Swastika article alone represents days and possibly weeks of lost productivity (depending how you measure them) which are not reflected in the final work, and as my extremely cursory overview shows, facts and additional information are obliterated simply by erosion by people with no personal stake in the subject or in-depth knowledge of it, eventually driving out people bringing in views or researched information. Sometimes the resultant work is deep and informative... often it is not.

I am reminded of a review of a certain video camera, which was reknown for being pretty inexpensive and making good output, where the reviewer said "this camera does not help you learn to be a cameraman... it teaches you how to run this camera alone". Wikipedia's procedural faults, complete anarchy as regards contributions, and sometimes-bizzare social rules do not teach people to become good researchers or writers... it teaches them how to be good Wikipedians, or to get the hell out.

Saying "Well, you ask for the impossible and we should be happy with what we have" is not an answer; it is a platitude. It is also very, very in line with the Wikipedia approach and outcome. I personally do not live by it. So there you go.

Wikipedia may be fine when it comes to an article about something that is really not material.

But when it comes to history and politics, Wikipedia can claim whatever it wants by shutting out those who actually know something about a certain topic. In that way, Wikipedia can rewrite history as it sees fit - which may have nothing to do with reality or the actual facts.

I am seeing this happen over and over. The world is not a better place when incomplete, incorrect and false information is coming up all over seach engines, and not just the ones Jason mentioned.

Wikipedia, in my view, is like pollution. It is disguising itself as an example of free speech, when the experience I had there makes me realize there is more going on, something much closer to fraud.

Free speech I can support; fraud, I can't.

I will never use Wikipedia for any reason whatsoever.

I will never recommend it to anyone.

The fact they do not allow dissent or acknowledge "controversy" is also troubling.

I sincerely hope they eventually go away, and a new project that actually has some interest in the facts of history and politics will emerge.

And, lets people who actually know something about history and politics to contribute.

Right now Wikipedia has a number of unwritten policies that prevent people with actual specialized knowledge about a historical or political topic to contribute, should WIkipedia decide such facts need to be deleted from the common memory.

I may sound harsh in my criticism, but actually I am being very low key about how I feel.

If Hitler were alive today, there is no doubt in my mind he would be thrilled with WIkipedia and
actively endorse it.

I can not.

Here is but one example of how Wikipedia's founder and his agents want to rewrite the life story of FL Gov Jeb Bush in the historical bio I was trying to write and contribute to WIkipedia:

Wikipedia does not want anyone to know the demographics of the charter school Jeb Bush founded here in FL, even though the charter school he founded was the first one in the state, and has historical significance, and his role at that school was beyond the role of a fundraiser.

Since there are some people who oppose everything Gov Bush does, and their strategy includes calling him names like a "Nazi" (as Dem Senator Meeks and others have called him) or a "racist" as he is called, it suits the political strategy of those to delete any and all facts which might prove Gov Bush is neither.

Consequently, I now realize, the historical information I was contributing about this historic charter school was prohibited by the unwritten pro-Dem policy of Wikipedia.

Here below is what I edited into the historical bio page about Jeb Bush, but if you go to that Jeb Bush Wikipedia page, you will find this information no longer exists.

It no longer exists because Dem Senator Meeks and others like to call Gov Bush a "Nazi" and a "racist" and they think this impresses independents like myself to go vote Dem. But, they are wrong. Erroneous personal attacks on this particular governor do not impress Florida voters, in my view. But, according to Wikipedia, never mind the facts.

There was no dicussion by anyone at Wikipedia about deleting the below information. Wikipedia harassed me off the site, and then did their trashing of Jeb Bush.

Somehow that does not seem fair to me. If the GOP ever had their version of Wikipedia, their would be worldwide protests. But, Wikipedia is currently getting away with political propaganda disguised as an encyclopedia.

Here is what I wrote and edited in about Gov Bush and the historic charter school he co-founded with T Willard Fair, a black activist in Miami:

----------------------
A year later, in 1996, Jeb's new foundation published a book he co-wrote, ''Profiles in Character'' . The book highlighted a number of ordinary people, detailing their true stories of uncommon courage. The foundation also published and distributed papers, such as "A New Lease on Learning: Florida's First Charter School," co-written by Bush.[http://www.heartland.org/pdf/21111f.pdf] (PDF) Bush subsequently wrote the foreword to another book, shown at right, published by the Heritage Foundation and written by Nina Shokraii Rees, ''School Choice 2000: What’s Happening in the States."

In his role as chairman of his foundation, Jeb Bush co-founded the first charter school in the State of Florida: [[Liberty City Charter School]], a grades K-6 elementary school.[[http://www.dadeschools.net/schools/liberty_charter.htm] Situated in [[Liberty City, Florida|Liberty City]], Dade County, the school is located just outside of greater Miami, in an area plagued by poverty. The co-founder, working alongside Bush as a partner, was [[T. Williard Fair]], a well-known local black activist and head of the Greater Miami Urban League.

The Liberty City Charter School still operates today as a charter school. The children Bush and Fair want to educate at this school come from a population having these demographics: 91% black, 66% of households headed by women, and 49% below the poverty line. [http://www.stpetersburgtimes.com/News/63099/Opinion/School_scores_are_a_l.shtml] [[Image:Jebrev_holmes.jpg|thumbnail|left|Gov. Jeb Bush welcomes Rev. Holmes to the Florida governor's mansion during Florida's annual celebration of Black History Month [http://www.myflorida.com/myflorida/governorsoffice/black_history/] ]]

The experience Jeb Bush had in co-founding this new educational institution was apparently not limited to raising money, according to Bill Maxwell, a ''[[St. Petersburg Times]]'' columnist. When he later defended Bush against an allegation of racism, Maxwell wrote the following in his column:

:"...I do not believe that Jeb is a racist today. He may have been one a few years ago, before he ran into that irremovable object called reality, before he met Greater Miami Urban League President T. Willard Fair. I know for a fact that Fair, along with other African-Americans, influenced Jeb in positive ways. They established Florida's first charter school in Miami's predominantly black Liberty City community.

:"On more than one occasion, I have seen Jeb interact with black parents and children at the school, and I am convinced that the man has learned to care. Yes, Jeb is arrogant, impatient and has many of the other traits that come with being privileged.

:"But racist? I do not think so." [http://www.saintpetersburgtimes.com/News/031900/Perspective/The_Bush_brothers_may.shtml]

-----------------

Here is Example #2 of the Wikipedia Political Propaganda Machine in action, and this is but one more example of many examples.

Below is the text I wrote and contributed to the Jeb Bush historical bio that appeared in the top left corner of the page.

This text has also been deleted by the Wikipedia Thought Police.

When I arrived at the page, I found there was a brief intro in the top left corner of the page that seemed incomplete to me.

It mentioned Gov Bush had a father and a brother, GW, and a brother, Neil.

So, to complete it, I added mention of the following: his mother, his sister, and his other brother, Marvin.

It also omitted what if anything was historic about Gov Bush, yet I noticed on other historical bio pages at Wikipedia there was often a brief one sentence located in that top left corner of the page about the historic significance of the subject.

So, I added this fact: Gov Bush is the first Republican ever to win a 2nd term as governor of the State of Florida.

There. I thought now, that little intro section looks complete. (By the way, his date of birth was already included in the section when I arrived.)

But, Wikipedia's Thought Police had other ideas about what a person should learn about Gov Bush in this little section at the top left corner of the page.

Consequently, after harassing me off the site, they deleted the one sentence I added about the historic significance of Gov Bush, and him being the first Republican to ever win a 2nd term as governor of Florida.

They also deleted mention of the women I included there: his mother and his sister.

In addition, they deleted mention of his brother Marvin.

Also, they deleted mention of his brother Neil, which had been there when I arrived.

Therefore, a reader may now get this impression from the incomplete information in the top left corner of that page:

JEB BUSH HAS A FATHER WHO WAS PRESIDENT;
JEB BUSH HAS A BROTHER WHO IS PRESIDENT;
AND SEE IF YOU CAN FILL IN THIS BLANK:
JEB BUSH ________________.

I believe they deliberately implied this to both dehumanize Gov Bush, and to scare people who are Dems into contributiing more money to the Wikipedia Foundation (a "neutral" non-profit).

Here is what I had written and edited in, because this is what I wanted to see in that top left corner of the page -- as I was actually trying to create an actual historic bio of Jeb Bush:

----------
'''John Ellis "Jeb" Bush''' (born [[February 11]], [[1953]]), a [[United States Republican Party|Republican]], is the 43rd and current [[List of Governors of Florida|Governor of Florida]], and the first Republican to be re-elected to the office of Florida governor. He is a prominent member of the [[Bush family]]: the younger brother of [[President of the United States of America|President]] [[George W. Bush]]; the older brother of [[Neil Bush]], [[Marvin Bush]] and [[Dorothy Bush Koch]]; and, the second son of former President [[George H. W. Bush]] and [[Barbara Bush]].
----------

However, as I found out -- the Wikipedia has a Thought Police on patrol and a political agenda. So the above was deleted out, again, without discussion.

As I said, I believe Hitler would be thrilled with Wikipedia. But, I am not impressed by Wikipedia.

Not at all.

I will give another example here, Example #3 of the Wikipedia Political Propaganda Machine in action.

However, again, this is but one more example, as there are many other examples I could give.

The Jeb Bush article has a discussion page separate from the article.

Because people were harassing me on Wikipedia, and I did not immeidiately recognize their deliberate interference as harassment, I tried to actually discuss matters with them.

To address their "concerns" about the information I was adding to the Jeb Bush historical bio page, I wrote on the article discussion page a new heading: "List Your Objections Here."

Below that heading I eventually disclosed to Wikipedia what ELSE I planned to write about Jeb Bush, as I left his record as governor (Section 3) as the last part to write. Section 3 had some text already threre when I arrived, but it was really not a good overall picture of what Gov Bush has accomplished thus far as governor.

So, in the article discussion page, I disclosed a few more topics I intended to add, such as these historic facts:

Jeb Bush is responsible for historic changes including:

- first faith based prison in the nation,
- first web site for the State of Florida,
- first trade agreement with a country in Latin America

etc.

But, instead of allowing me to contribute these historic facts, Wikipedia stepped up its harassment of me, to get me off the site and prevent me from making my contribution to the Jeb Bush historic bio.

I tried to follow the Wikipedia procedures for stopping the harassment by seeking a remedy at Wikipedia called "arbitration." What happened to me there would comprise another list of examples of why Wikipedia is actually political propaganda disguised as an encyclopedia.

Consequently, based on my experience, I would say Wikipedia's much promoted claim that "anyone" can contribute information to Wikipedia is a bogus claim.

It is false because Wikipedia decides who will contribute, and what contributions it will allow.

And, anyone who knows historic facts about a person Wikipedia does not like is not welcome at Wikipedia.

That is the sad truth.

Why is that the truth? As I said, someone like Hitler knows the answer. And is thrilled.

Someone like me, on the other hand, is simply shocked.

Woah, Summer, lot of anger there.

My interest in things political is somewhat minimal, and I have no way to verify what you're talking about to a great amount, but I think it's important to get to the root of your issue related to what I'm talking about.

People who use Wikipedia will point to your side of things and go "Well, if you believe this stuff is true, rephrase it and edit it back in; anyone can edit Wikipedia". And my issue is not that, over time, once emotions and current political hotbededness has subsided, that the "correct" or least additional information will prevail. It's the human cost in achieving in minor goals because there's so much wasted energy.

Your frustration seems partially about your point of view or interpretation not getting into the entry and staying, but more about people undoing your contentions with no real sense being given about why they should be undoing it; if they don't agree, out it goes, in you put it, and the two of you are fighting it back and forth until one of you tires out and stops bringing your content in.

It looks like ultimately you gave up, but you're left on the sidelines, beat up and miserable. I'm sorry to hear what is supposed to be a positive community effort leaves people as such wreckage. I wonder how many people there are like you.

Jason, I appreciate your comments, but I politely disagree with how
you interpret my posts.

First of all, you can't edit anything back in when you are harassed
off a site.

By "harassed off a site" I mean the site and its owner, in this case,
the founder of Wikipedia (whom I emailed by the way, before I left,
hoping and expecting he would help me), made it clear: ANY content
I contributed to the Jeb Bush article would be destroyed if it pertained
to true facts about his record as governor.

So, that does not give one a lot of uh, shall we say, leeway there.

Wikipedia has already decided what it wants known about Jeb Bush
and what it does NOT want known about Jeb Bush.

Consequently, "anyone can edit Wikipedia" is, in short, a crock of
sh*t, to put it bluntly.

Second, my frustrations have nothing to do with any point of view
as you allege.

If you delete the name "Jeb Bush" from the three examples I gave
above in my posts, you would probably say: "Gee, all that info you
tried to edit into Wikipedia was totally neutral and fact-based -
- why the big fuss at Wikipedia?"

But the name "Jeb Bush" evokes certain thoughts from people before
you ever get to any facts, whether the thought is simply this: he
is someone in politics, and so what I am about to read is going to
be "political."

Well, he is also an historic figure, and I honestly tried to focus
on history-making facts about him.

Those were the facts most quickly rejected by Wikipedia. And, I find
that, shall we say, rather strange.

What I think is most significant about my experience at Wikipedia
is the following, and the following has nothing to do with politics
per se, but rather the erroneous way many techie geeks discuss Wikipedia
(no offense to you personally intended):

In an article I read entitled "First Two Laws of Commons-Based Peer
Production" dated Feb 27, 2005 on Corante, the writer is proclaiming
why Wikipedia will be a "success" based on two "laws" -- which in
fact do not even apply to Wikipedia:

1) The first "law" cited in this article is as follows:
"(Law1.) When positive contributions exceed negative contributions
by a sufficient factor in a CBPP project, the project will be successful.
"

My reaction is this: All well and good, but what does this law have
to do with Wikipedia, since at Wikipedia "positive contributions"
can and will be PROHIBITED -- and therefore, the Wikipedia project's
success or failure can not be measured nor predicted by the above
law.

2) "(Law 2.) Cohesion quality is the quality of the presentation
of the concepts in a collaborative component...."

Again, all well and good, and sounds nice, but what does this have
to do with Wikipedia, since a "collaborative" component is in fact
absent from Wikipedia?

This is what irks me beyond any "politics" -- the people who support
open source and open content are so determined to lend their support
to anything they think is Open Source and Open Content that they
can not actually truthfully evaluate what is Wikipedia.

I happen to also support Open Source and Open Content - but Wikipedia
is neither one.

The techie geeks who are supporting Wikipedia without question are
being duped, big-time.

What these techie people will eventually do is to turn off people
like myself to Open Source and Open Content, because while I support
those concepts, I recognize that Wikipedia has nothing to do with
either one.

And, if a non-techie geek like myself can figure this out, based
on real experiences I had at Wikipedia, then, woe is the world if
the world is going to rely on these techie geeks and their laws.

These geeks need to stop salivating over Wikipedia and start to open
their eyes more.

Their support and their credibility is what Wikipedia certainly wants
more than anything, without question, and without controversy, because
Wikipedia knows what it is actually doing has nothing to do with
Open Source and Open Content.

I am currently support both of those concepts -- but I am NOT for
Wikipedia.

I would like to see the techie geeks wake up.... before they turn
off everyone to Open Source and Open Content by wrongly throwing
their support at a project like Wikipedia, which is neither.

Thanks for an intelligent eye-opener on the workings of Wikipedia. I particularly like the comparison to open source programming projects; Linux is a true peer-review project, Wikipedia is not.

And there in is the key term: "Peer-Review" (with an emphasis on "peer")

Re Phil's comment on Jason's article - Yeah, in my short ten day stint at Wikipedia I learned that if Wikipedia Thought Police sticks a "peer review" label on an article's talk page, that doesn't mean: Wikipedia actually has any peers qualified to ever review the article. Nor does it mean they ever intend to allow anyone like me -- who actually knew about the topic I was writing about --to finish contributing to it. Consequently, in my opinion, here's a law that actually does apply to Wikipedia:
garbage in = garbage out

Jason, your argument highlights an important and necessary flaw in the process of editing wikipedia: that there are no qualifications to edit an article. However, does this mean you suggest wikipedia should be abandoned? An open-source encyclopedia is going to have different advantages/disadvantages than a print encyclopedia. Encyclopedia Brittanica, for example, is written by relatively much fewer people. While they are more qualified in their respective topics, the possibility for bias is much greater. In addition, articles such as the 2004 Christmas Tsunami, or any current topics, would not exist for some time, whereas if you look at the one in wikipedia, it contains a wealth of information, charts, graphics, and resources to learn further. And finally, the amount of topics that can be covered by a traditional encyclopedia is miniscule compared to Wikipedia. While the quality of some of these "stubs" in Wikipedia is debatable, if you took only half the articles, Wikipedia would still have more.

Using encyclopedias as a reference in general is not really encouraged, whether it is Wikipedia or EB, so I don't get your objection to people's insistence not to use Wikipedia as the final word. Instead, it can give you a primer on what you need to know and show you where to look for more info, which is exactly the functiontion of an enclyopedia in the first place.

You have correctly pointed out some of the flaws of Wikipedia, but there is no perfect system in accumulating knowledge into one resource. While EB is a much more reliable tool at this point, what system do you see in 20 years as providing a better snapshot of the sum of human knowledge? Personally, I have more faith in an open-source solution than closed, but i guess that's just the slashdotter in me.

Re kizzie's post - If kizzie is a slashdotter, then kizzie should know that what the founder of Wikipedia is espousing about how to use Wikipedia -- on slashdot -- is totally different than what kizzie has just written.

The foudner of Wikipedia says the opposite of what kizzie's post in this interview on Slashdot:

Slashdot | Wikipedia Founder Jimmy Wales Responds
Wikipedia founder responds to a dozen highly moderated questions.
slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/28/1351230 - 212k

Specifically, he "encourages" everyone in the world to rely on every word in Wikipedia as an "encyclopedia reference":

---------------------------
Interview date July 2004 - URL:

http://interviews.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/07/28/1351230&tid=146&tid=95&tid=11

Question #10 - Wikipedia founder's answer:

"... We are an encyclopedia.

...We are a _free_ encyclopedia, with all that entails."

Question #7:

Wikipedia founder: "... It is my intention to get a copy of Wikipedia to every single person on the planet in their own language. It is my intention that free textbooks from our wikibooks project will be used to revolutionize education in developing countries by radically cutting the cost of content.

... Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing."

------------------------------

In light of the way they actually operate, without anyone submitting content as some people are PROHIBITED due to the historical or political factual content they are trying to submit, harassing people off the site when a political fact does not match their own pro-Dem bias, publishiing as a reference without peer review by qualified peers, I would politely suggest to you that what Wikipedia is often doing, at best, is polluting the world, especially on search engines.

Funny how the founder forgot to mention that in his slashdot interview. Oops, I forgot: it was a CLOSED interview, that was HIGHLY moderated. Only certain questions allowed. What a shock., huh kizzie?

i tried to post a response on your other page.

"Over time, damage and low quality will win over high quality, because high quality requires effort and low quality does not"

Yes, but low quality work is

1) Much more visible to the eye than high quality work.
2) Not sourced
3) Reviewed by the other editors of a page.

So while your theory correctly describes a natural tendency in advancing content on Wikipedia, it does not take into account internal checking by other contributors to a page. While these other editors may not have a degree in the field they write about, they at least have an interest in the subject in order to edit it, so the likelihood of such low quality "damage" to sustain itself as time goes on grows less and less. And keep in mind, there does exist the possibility for low quality work to elude either some or all of the above characteristics, but these are the exceptions rather than the rule. These necessary characteristics of "low quality edits" as a whole contribute to its probability of a short life.

Re: Summer's Wales quote.

While these might be his intentions, you might want to comment on the logical structure of my post rather than what Wikipedia's founder says.

Wales is correct in aspiring for Wikipedia to become an "encylopedic reference". I apologize for using "reference" previously, I meant it in the way that one references a source in writing a paper.

As for a system of moderation, I believe it is entirely necessary on slashdot (given the nit-picky tech types on it), and for Wikipedia, I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to it. But slashdot's moderation is different than Encyclopedia Brittanica's moderation, or any other form proposed by opponents of Wikpiedia's open system. ANYONE can post to slashdot, and anyone can see those posts, its just whether or not they gain prominence in the overall content of the page.

- I think that it weakens your argument to use such a culturally/politically/racially/religiously charged symbol. Of the half-million entries in the wikipedia, I would assume the 'Swastika' one would be very high on the controversial side. If I were doing research on the Swastika, I would certainly recognize this and draw from many sources, as any schoolchild is taught at the library. (This is absolutely true of the "Disputed" ("NPOV") topics in the Wikipedia, but of course many other types as well. Would you draw research on the Swastika using only Britannica? Do you think that the editors of the Britannica didn't have lots of discussions and changes and arguments over what the Swastika entry should say?)

Your argument seems to really only be of relevance to these types of "hot topics" - thankfully, the open system allows me to see these arguments which are taking place.

- I think it is unfair to refer to Wikipedia usage as "negligent" Who said that it is providing what you call 'facts'? Does your BBS Documentary have disclaimers all over it that say "THIS FILM IS NOT TO BE TAKEN AS FACT - IT IS MERELY THE VOICES OF SEVERAL PEOPLE STATING THEIR HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE, EDITED TOGETHER BY ME" I doubt it. People watching it should know better, just as people gathering information from any source should.

- I wonder if you hate our form of government too - that whole 'checks and balances' thing is so obnoxious. The entire system looks like a nicely built house from afar, but when you get close and see all of the changes and revisions and mistakes... How do you like my strawman argument?

Uh, if you read my posts, you would know: whatever Wikipedia's individual founder says -- well, THAT is what goes down at Wikipedia. So, consequently, I think your post's "logistics" are actually irrelevant.

And, if you read certain pages at Wikipedia, you will find statements affirming what I am telling you now: there is no due process there at Wikipedia.

So, whatever you happen to think here on this thread, is in fact irrelevant to Wikipedia from the point of view of Wikipedia. But, you are free to shall we say, blather on.

As for your previous put-down of having a small group of people professionally editing a REAL encyclopedia -- I disagree with you claiming that is not desirable, a small GROUP of people is preferable than having having what Wikipedia has, which is ONE dictator on a project that is disguised as an encyclopedia but is actually a political propaganda machine when the opportunity arises.

Finally, as for your 'system of moderation" comment, you are attempting to intentionally obscure the fact that the Slashdot interview was really designed solely to enable the Wikipedia founder to say what he wanted to say, and nothing more.

Nevertheless, thank you for acknowledging my presence on the thread, as Jason did.

It is nice to know that you have realized that yes, some woman can read, too. Some men still don't know that.

Frank, I just want you to know my above post was for kizzle, but this post is for you:

What do you say to this complaint, below, about wikipedia? Should the US Government be fraudulently induced to award tribal nation status to this group?

From the comments on this thread:

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/30/142458/25

---------------

Excerpt:

" But the crucial point now is that the balance of power in the Wikipedia article favors the fake 'Taínos'.  They [the fake Tainos, as explained in his post below] have much more of an interest in presenting a false version of history in the Wikipedia article, than other people do in eliminating outright fabrications from it.  The people who could correct it just don't have enough at stake to dedicate the amount of time required."

-------
His entire post:

I largely agree (2.75 / 24) (#115)
by Estanislao Martínez on Fri Dec 31st, 2004 at 08:39:21 PM EST
(em@IRantThereforeIAm.com) http://www.adequacy.org/

This article very much reflects a large amount of the things that I find wrong with Wikipedia.  Let's put this from my perspective: I have studied Linguistics extensively, and am a dissertation away from a Ph.D.  What do I see when I look at Wikipedia's articles on this topic?  I see articles "written" by an aggregation of people who seem to have studied it only as far as an Intro to Linguistics course, and thus do nothing but repeat the simplifications offered by their introductory textbooks; but since they don't understand the topic in question, they do it wrong.  People who don't know how to define basic terms in a way that's both appropriate to the target audience and technically accurate (a very difficult skill).  Articles which don't have any narrative thread and read like they were  put together by a dozen people randomly writing paragraphs without reading what others did (well, because that's how it happened!).

There's another kind of scenario I've seen, which is related to the "trolls" theme in the article, but not quite.  Wikipedia has an unrecognized problem with cranks on obscure topics.  Much ink is spilled by Wikipedians about how when somebody goes into some popular article and edits it into something very tendentious, it is caught quickly and reverted.  What is not much discussed at all is cases where cranks go into an article that's not popular at all and alter it, to suit their ideology and/or political agenda.

I have an example in mind.  It is the Wikipedia article on the Taíno, the first Native American peoples that the Spaniards had extensive contact with in the New World.  The Taíno were decimated by disease and cultural assimilation in the 16th century, and thus have been extinct for over 400 years.

There is, however, a group of Puerto Ricans, based in New Jersey, who call themselves the "The Jatibonicù Taino Tribal Band of New Jersey", claim to be Taínos, and seek to achieve tribal nation status with the US government.  These people obviously have a large interest in propagating a false version of New World colonial history, and they have edited the Wikipedia article to hedge the claims of Taíno extinction with things like "it is popular scholarly opinion", and insert their blatantly fabricated story into the article.

The Taínos are a pretty obscure topic.  The only countries where the general population cares to know much about them are Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico.  In most of these it's a topic that's taught very early on in elementary school, and which captivates people's imagination, and thus is subject to constant representation in the popular culture.  The result is that most people know all they want to know about the topic, and never feel like they have a need to look it up in an encyclopedia.  But the crucial point now is that the balance of power in the Wikipedia article favors the fake "Taínos".  They have much more of an interest in presenting a false version of history in the Wikipedia article, than other people do in eliminating outright fabrications from it.  The people who could correct it just don't have enough at stake to dedicate the amount of time required.

For a bit more of information, see the discussion pages for Taino (without the accent on the "i") and Taíno (with the accent).

Summer, I did not even realize you were a woman.

If all that you are claiming is that Wikipedia "does not have any due process" then I must agree with you. I am merely detailing that such a system isn't inherently as bad as Jason puts it.

"ONE dictator on a project that is disguised as an encyclopedia but is actually a political propaganda machine when the opportunity arises"

I don't even know how to respond to such an inflammatory accusation. But Wikipedia especially is much more than just its creator, as Wales has very little impact on the day-to-day editing of pages. My personal belief is that a large amount of people editing pages is better, we just disagree on that aspect, but you cannot deny that as the amount of people editing a page decrease, the possibility for bias increases.

"you are attempting to intentionally obscure the fact that the Slashdot interview was really designed solely to enable the Wikipedia founder to say what he wanted to say, and nothing more"

that's news to me. And I think its news to Slashdot as well. And remember, if you dislike the interview, it was questions harvested from a "closed-system moderation" as you put it, so you should be happy with it.

Finally, summer, I can't help but judge your opinions not against the fact that you are a woman, as you were defensive to point out, but your palpable hatred of Wikipedia colors your opinion far more than any logical coherence it might have. If you just sat back and discussed the issue with a little less vitriol, your view might be taken more seriously.

kizzie, I don't "dislike" the interview; I think it was quite interesting, and that's why I posted the URL. It sounds like YOU don't the interview, because it refutes everything you tried to claim as a "slashdotter."

And, it's OK you didn't know I am woman - how would you know? I don't know if you are Jimbo Wales or a man or a woman or whatever. So, don't sweat it.

As for accusing me of "vitriol" that is always one way to attempt to deflect from the actual conversation.

Especially when you know you are dealing with a woman.

But, I digress. Here is my point, again:

If yoyt techie geeks continue to support what other members of the public, male or female, will discover, on their own, and perhaps very quietly, about Wikpedia's gross failings, and you continue to wrongly label Wikipedia an example of "open source" and "open content" then: you techies risk losing the support of those in the general public like myself who want to support "open source" and "open content" but do not support the fraud that is Wikipedia.

That is my opinion.

As more people go to Wikipedia and get harassed off at the direction of its founder, more people will know what I am saying is true. But, to get harassed off, they have to attempt to contribute true content to an historical or political topic, or a topic in which they are an expert.

Because Wikipedia's legal disclaimer says the opposite of its founder blathers on in interviews: that no one should rely on Wikipedia for anything.

How and why its founder now intends to turn such unreliable, biased online Wikipedia information into permanent information in CD ROMS and textbooks is a matter that you might want to ponder further.

Like I said before, if your arguments contained less inflamatory statements and personal attacks and stuck to what you believe, more people would take you seriously. From what I see on your userpage, all this hatred comes from dealing with one problem user, and perceiving a lack of involvement by Wikipedia because you went to arbitration first rather than mediation.

Seriously, just get over it. Don't take it out on Wikipedia as a whole using personal attacks, you were totally in the right in this case. So cite your sources, try and get concensus, take a vote... don't just abandon the project and call it a fraud.

Wow, a lot of chatter going by. I'm going to address people in my own chosen order, so keep tuned.

Frank, I'll start with you, since it's the easiest to explain/work with.

I entirely agree that the Swastika entry is a pretty weird one, and contains some additional echoes of political and taboo-oriented noise that make it more contentious than the usual entry. But part of how to tell the effectiveness of a system is how it functions under load, and the Swastika entry is under heavy load. When you have an entry with one or two people working with it, then you have what I call the "Advantage of Least Worth", which is where a subject or object that has meaning to very few people ends up being rather consistent in its operation. Just like a piece of code where one person is the entire development team has a very straightforward, monolithic feel to the code because it is, after all, one or two people.

The problem with me going further into this Wikipedia thing is that it's a time sink unlike no other; the point of this entry was to give an example of what I am talking about and why I said what I said. You have looked at it and gone "nah, not valid" and that's fine. I suppose I could run a site that delves deep into the politics and flaws of Wikipedia, but then I think that wouldn't be very helpful AND would in fact, ultimately be stupid since I could be doing positive things with my own sites and works.

Kudos for linking my BBS Documentary in with this entry, although tangentally. At the end of the day, the documentary ends up standing on its own, the work of one person, and then I will be involved in criticism and activity with it from them on. Since I'm releasing it and all its raw footage as Creative Commons, the opportunity for people to take it and refashion it is quite there and quite encouraged.

Yeah, you got a little sarcastic there at the end, but let me at least address where I mean "Negligent". When you start doing things like linking Wikipedia in from chat clients and search sites, you head down the road of starting to obfuscate the source. And it's all well and good to go "don't believe anything you see or hear from the Internet or from your client" but the fact is people are using the Internet to purchase items, shop, research and grab facts, and that trend is not going to diverge; it is likely going to increase. With barely any barrier to entry and with the lack of assigned editors or at least people keeping some sort of Den Mother relationship to areas, there is a lot of wasted energy I do not wish to put into the project.

SummerFR --

I'm a casual contributor to Wikipedia at best, and don't give a rat's ass about Jeb Bush one way or the other, but it's kind of weird seeing you talk about the "Wikipedia Political Propaganda Machine" when the content you were trying to add reads like propaganda in places itself. From the material you posted here, all of this would get the red pen if I were editing your work (in *any* context, not just for Wikipedia):

- "Jeb" -- too casual; use "Mr. Bush" or "Bush"

- "ordinary people/true stories of uncommon courage" "plagued by poverty" -- POV, characterization; less drama please

- illustration of book he provided the foreword to -- tangential relevance at best; cover of something he wrote ("Profiles In Character"?) would be more appropriate

- Detailed description of the school, its history and mission + link to paper about the school belong in a separate entry for the school itself

- "Jeb's No Racist" quote -- hagiographic; redundant unless responding to accusations of racism elsewhere in article; v. weak support of paragraph lede "The experience Jeb Bush had in co-founding this new educational institution was apparently not limited to raising money"

- "Family tree" entry for the top left corner -- too detailed for such a summary; less politically prominent relatives belong in the body of the article

- "First faith based prison" as a bullet point in "accomplishments" -- POV; needs context; section on interaction btw. Bush's policies and his religious beliefs would be more appropriate

If your style of argument on the article's discussion page was anything like the one you're using here (you're a victim; everyone else is a dupe; geek this, Hitler that) I'm not surprised you were made to feel unwelcome.

I also just took a look at the Jeb Bush entry and noted that most of the "Civic And Charitable Activities" information you're claiming was removed from the article is still in the article. Hmmm.

In re: Jason's comments, I agree that the mechanism for Wikipedia causes a lot of thrashing in certain circumstances, but I don't see how any tighter restrictions on contributors or on the process would reduce that. The would still be just as much wasted energy, it would just move from arguments about specific controversial topics to arguments about who gets to make binding decisions affecting controversial topics. Plus they'd get to maintain a bunch of extra infrastructure around it (locking out the great unwashed) *and* -- special secret wave bonus! -- there'd be a brand new Internet-wide windpissing screamfest about "Wikipedia Censorship" and The Wikipedia Cabal. Ehhh, no thanks.

Kizman, you come next. (This is like some sort of ending of Wizard of Oz, where I reveal everyone has a heart, brain and courage.)

I have to state, unequivocably, that I like the Wikipedia software, and the poor structure they are using for article actions and editing, social-wise, are forcing a lot of interaction issues that are interesting. The ability to simultaneously edit multiple sections of an entry come to mind. I suspect I will use it down the road.

It's easy to see vandalism and it's easy to see agendas... but it's not so easy to take on a subtle form of trolling or attack. And the thing is, while there is lauding about how open and free it is, it's kind of not, because there ARE gods and admins who walk among them, able to lock editing on pages, delete pages (and histories) entirely as if they never existed, and, most recently, a way to track all the accounts an IP uses (which very few users can use). I suspect, in the long range, Wikipedia will have to address the lack of formal people to come to with requests or complaints, instead of the insane melee they are encouraging now.

This is what I mean by misinterpreting what I'm trying to get across, and why I think this is the last I'll be writing about this subject: it's like when you read "Goto Considered Harmful". It's a case of the patient isn't terminal, but the implementation of the patient, in my opinion, is. It's all code, it'll all work out, of course, or it will die. I'm just seeing, the way things are, that I don't want a piece of it.

This stuff happens all the time, in other systems requiring collaboration or social interaction; you have these grand experiments, a lot of time is spent with them, and then they succeed (and often get taken over then) or they fail (and everyone tries again).

I stand firm that comparing Wikipedia's current implementation to open source is fatally flawed.

Man, Nibble jumps in! It's quite a day, personal heroes everywhere.

Regarding your comments, I would take meta-arguments about the moving forward of the entry and the actions of the assigned, reachable admins of an area over the "everyone grabs a box" approach they're doing now. In ANY collaboration medium, you get wasted energy ("what do you mean you wrote the new serial driver? I just wrote one!") but right now, the complete utter lack of any accountability for people (not even user accounts and a policy of no doubled accounts) combined with a vague sense of power above and power below, and people with intense energy drowning out people who might be correct but don't want to re-enter the same information over and over and over... it's not for me.

I state as I stated above, I think Wikipedia's going to have to change. I'm already seeing it happen.

True, the system is not entirely open. But a completely open system is not desirable. The choice is not between a completely closed or completely open system, its striking a balance in between, just like Slashdot's moderation is both open and closed (though leaning towards closed), whereas Wikipedia's current is both as well (though leaning towards open).

Well, I feel like the first person who came across the gas chambers in Europe during WWII and tried to tell someone, but everyone said, "Yuk, that sounds too grusome to be real! You must be crazy!" So, I am not going to care how many names I am called, or how often people fail to respond to my real points in my argument, and instead just attack met. It's OK. Someday you will see what Hitler is really like, and then you';ll say, "Remember that woman teacher who tried to tell us all about this way back when?"

As for the point by point claims someone posted here about Jeb Bush, I will respond to that when I have more time.

But, again, to the techie geeks who being duped big time by the bogus claims made by Wikipedia's founder - that "anyone" is welcome to edit Wikipedia and that it is Open Content and OPen Source, I again urge you: WAKE UP.

It would be great to keep Open Content and Open Source projects viable projects, but if so, one needs to ditch the fraud that pretends to be both when it is neither, like Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is pollution for the most part.
Getting rid of pollution is something often on the minds of consumers, the general public and the government, in my personal opinion.

Consequently, techie geeks should be trying to distinguish what is and isn't pollution, before throwing their support behind a smoke stack that may be linked to a gas chamber you can't see right now, but I did.

Oh yes, I know, too dramatic. No one wanted to stop Hitler at first either, as I recall. AT least that's what is stated in the REAL history books.

so you're saying Wikipedia is on the same level as the extermination of 6 million people?

I'm not posting to you since you claim to be from slashdot and yet you have no idea what the founder of wikipedia said in his slashdot interview. Obviously you are what is commonly known in the online world as a "disruptor."

And, in light of Jason Scott's newtest essay and its title, above my analogy was right on target, in my view.

But nothing more needs to be said from me to you. Maybe you are Jimbo Wales. And, who knows -- perhaps you are more than a little worried that some techie geek might actually be paying attention to what I am saying, the links I have posted and the other info and links I will be posting.

But, again, that info is not directed to you. Go back and read the slashdot interview you apparently forgot about that I posted above. And compare the statements of Wikipedia's founder with your statements in your initial posts, as you blathered on about Wikipedia.

Have fun.

Wow, this conversation is so totally Godwin-ed.

sounds good.

Jason, did you ever reply to me?

Well, Jason, I am not sure what you mean by that term, but here is something I want you to know:

I just got back from having dinner with some friends -- some TECHIE friends. I do not think of them that way because I have many interests, and I do not always talk about technology.

But, on my way to dinner, I realized: these people are REAL techie. They spend their lives working on tehcnology, they make their living on technology, and I would bet they know more about technology than certain "techies" on this very thread.

So, I decided to ask them what they thought of Wikipedia.
And, here is what happened:

Before I could ever give my opinion, the verdict given to me on Wikipedia, without dissent, was this: thumbs DOWN.

The reason? "Reliability - Wikipedia has NO reliability."

I was also told at diner that academics, librarians, and techies do not like Wikipedia because of NO reliability.

When I told them I was shut out of Wikipedia, they were not surprised by that. They explained it to me this way:

Wikipedia is a community, and like all communities, it has its rules. If the rule - written or unwritten - is that no one can contribute accomplishments of Jeb Bush in the Jeb Bush page, then, they are certainly going to prevent me from doing that since if I do that, I am breaking their commuity's rule.

Furthermore, here's what they had to say about Jeb Bush -- and by the way, these are people who are NOT fans of his brother --
a big thumbs UP on Jeb Bush.

So, I had a great night tonight. Because I did not even have to explain to my friends, who are very influential in technology in this area, why I was so upset.

With them, I laughed.

When I get around to it, I will respond to that one guy's post, even though my friends told me not to bother, as they laughed at any techie defendinig Wikipedia.

What a night.

To Lazlo Nibble:

Regarding your above post to me on this thread -- I said I would respond to you so I am.

Well, first of all, I realize that to some people, anything that is NOT overtly “anti-Jeb” is considered “propaganda.” And, as I explained on the JEB article discussion page, I was certainly NOT trying to be “anti-Jeb.”

But, if I try to be fair about him – and I wasn’t even afforded the opportunity at Wikipedia to complete my intended contributions – some people may think it all seems like “propaganda” since it’s NOT anti-Jeb.

In addition, I fully expected to edit and change some language once I completed what I wanted to do, but, again, I was prevented from completing my contribution.

As for your commentary, I think what you did here on this thread is to “pile on” to my three specific examples.

Because I do not want to waste a lot more of my time on this thread, I will deal with what you wrote in the most expedient way possible, I will respond to whatever you wrote about my three specific examples, so as not to widen the original scope of discussion I offered here. But, as to the “pile on” issues, I will identify those and dismiss them for the reasons below.

I think your list of objections fall into three categories:

1) “twiddler” objections – meaning, the kind of minor style or format issues that certain people at Wikipedia (the “twiddlers”) fuss over endlessly, in their ridiculous effort to annoy actual content creators like myself

2) “bogus or mistaken” objections – meaning, I believe you are incorrectly characterizing something
3) “Content creation” - meaning you are responding to one of the three examples I posted earlier in the thread.

So, let’s look at your list now, and see what you have to say:

1) Your “Jeb” complaint is a TWIDDLER objection

2) Your “ordinary people” complaint is a BOGUS/MISTAKEN objection

3)Your illustration complaint is another TWIDDLER
objection

4) Your school comment relates to an example I gave, and concerns actual CONTENT CREATION, so I will respond here.

5) Your “Jeb’s No Racist quote” is a BOGUS or MISTAKEN objection (but will be dealt with anyway in the above school content response)

6) Your family entry comment relates to an example I gave, and concerns actual CONTENT CREATION, so I will respond here.

7) Your “first faith based prison” relates to an example I gave concerns CONTENT CREATION, so I will respond here.

8) Your “style” comment is another TWIDDLER complaint, and needs no comment from me. I would only refer you back to the title of Jason Scott’s article here “SWASTIPEDIA.”
9)Your complaint #9 that I made an erroneous complaint here on this thread about his civic life is a BOGUS/ MISTAKEN objection (and, remember: Wikipedia pages can be edited at any moment)

10) You complaint #10 directed at Jason re Wikipedia and censorship is exactly what I am talking about -- so thank you for mentioning CENSORSHIP. I believe my three examples posted earlier on this thread, as well as Wikipedia’s decision to shut me out, evidence Wikipedia’s censorship, for anyone actually concerned about censorship. Frankly, now that I understand Wikipedia better, I would never have gone to them in the first place, and spared myself a lot of grief.

But, Wikipedia does people like me a disservice in pretending to be something they are not. They are NOT “open” to “anyone” for editing and content creation. They are CLOSED to certain people depending on the topic, especially if the topic is of an historic or political nature, and the facts one want to edit in do not support their view of the world.

That is OK with me. But they should say that up front so I don’t waste my time there, and I don’t have suffer their mean, rude and cruel behavior, and slander, and mostly nonstop harassment. I did not enjoy that. It was not fun for me. It was not “anyone can edit” and it was not “collaboration.”

I would have been more than happy to AVOID Wikipedia had I known that harassment was inevitable against me due to the subject of the article. It might surprise you to know I have been on other forums, and yet, never have I been treated as badly overall as I was treated on Wikipedia. Wikipedia was the absolute worst. You can read my request for an arbitration hearing, and one person on the committee wanted to hear my complaint, but the others didn’t. Here is my Wikipedia User page, though I don’t know what Wikipedia may have edited in or out from it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SummerFR

In short, what I learned at Wikipedia is that there are some peole there who hate Jeb Bush. So, OK; fine, Wikipedia can go ahead and hate, but now, I know that.

If you require further evidence of Wikipedia’s obvious bias against Jeb Bush (beyond the harassment I suffered), I would refer to you this Wikipedia page showing Wikipedia’s version of what happened in Election 2000:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities
wiki article title: “2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities”

Wikipedia’s map on that page shows that Florida, where Gov Bush has been governor since winning in 1998 through the present, 2005, has “Fraud investigation w/strong indication or hard evidence” re voter fraud in Election 2000.

Now, Wikipedia’s founder currently lives in Florida. Maybe he knows something about “evidence” of fraud in Election 2000 that the rest of the state doesn’t know -- since two years later, the voters of Florida sent Jeb Bush back to Tallahassee in an historic re-election, with Gov Bush winning the largest margin of votes in state history. A

And, again, it was the first time a Republican was ever
re-elected as governor of this state.

So, you see, the reality of the 2002 governor’s race and actual history-making events of 2002 do not appear to me to jive with Wikipedia’s Election 2000 map version of events. There is a conflict here. Wikipedia wants it one way; while the collective wisdom of Florida citizens shows history to be very different than Wikipedia’s Election 2000 Map.

If most citizens of Florida believed Wikipedia’s Election 2000 map, then, I do not think they would have voted so overwhelmingly for Gov Bush just two short years later. Obviously the majority of the voting citizens of Florida -- and the one Florida citizen who is the founder of Wikipedia -- are not exactly on the same page here in terms of what really happened in Florida in 2000.

That conflict and discord now apparent in Wikipedia pages resulted from the true facts I was writing about Jeb Bush. Another result of Wikipedia’s bias and my writing true facts was Wikipedia’s harassment of me off the site.

But, let’s get back to your list of objections against my writing. As I classified your ten objections, we now have:

--One Comment about Censorship that I addressed, as yes, there is already Censorship at Wikipedia
-- Three TWIDDLER complaints that I will ignore here;
---Three BOGUS/MISTAKE complaints that I won’t consider here as already explained; and
--- Three CONTENT CREATION complaints relating to my three earlier posts. I will address you on those, to come.

To Lazlo Nibble:

I was planning to wait and take my time in writing back more to you, but after thinking about this more, I have decided to finish what I want to say to you today, as soon as possible.

The reason is this: I don't want to stop any dialogue between Jason and others who might want to post to Jason on this thread.

And, people need not include me in their comments. I now think I may have been wrong to imply that earlier on this thread.

I really had only planned to give my 2 cents on this thread. It is turning into more than I intended, so I want to finish as quickly as possible and get out of the way, and not post again, so others can have a dialogue.

I very much appreciate Jason allowing me to respond to you, which I will do now, in the posts below this one.

Then, I will leave this thread. And, I will leave hoping others will continue to talk to each, and to Jason, but not necessarily to me. I will have said all I wanted to say here (and more). And, that will be enough from me.

thank you.

and by the way, coming up with your own cutesy names for classifying objections doesn't mean you actually responded to them. Don't forget, when you call someone's objection, like his #2 saying your edit was POV drama, which it was, you need to actually say *why* it was wrong rather than calling it a bogus accusation.

Also, Election 2000. Al Gore would have won if given a full recount of the state. In addition, thousands of blacks were wrongly disenfranchised by a company paid $4 million contracted by Florida. There was extremely strong evidence of fraud in 2000. Now whether this involved Jeb I highly doubt, and the Wikipedia article in no way mentions your savior, Jeb Bush, as being connected to any of this, but the evidene for such misdoings is very great. This paranoia you have about Jimbo Wales and the great big-ol bad "Wikipedia" as a dictatorship, shows in this accusation. Summer, can you show me in the edit history where Wales contributed to the passage you are citing? He must be working overtime on creating Democratic propaganda in thousands and thousands of pages.

Please go laugh about Wikipedia and/or my posts to your friends if it makes you feel better. Because clearly all this has gotten you all worked up, and I think you need to unwind before continuing discussion about Wikipedia.

Jason, you have some good ideas about classifying Wikipedia's weaknesses, i'd like to see you respond to some of my earlier posts, like your argument that crap will win out over quality.

Let's start with the text that appears in the top left corner of the current Wikipeida page on Jeb Bush. You responded to my earlier post about that by saying as follows in your post:

"- 'Family tree' entry for the top left corner -- too detailed for such a summary; less politically prominent relatives belong in the body of the article."

I don't know what you are talking about in light of the fact I researched the way other historical bios on Wikipedia are writtern, and I tried to follow the format I identified.

And, it was not a "family tree" I was including in that top left corner. Nor was the family info "too detailed" -- it was one sentence. And I believe the "less prominent" relatives need not be mentioned at all in his historical bio unless there is some specific reason to do so. (And, there may be.)

Consequently, I disagree with everything you said here.

But, since I am a person who not only enjoys working alone but ALSO enjoys working with OTHERS, let's do this:

Let's allow the reader who is reading this thread decide which version of the top left text is BEST for an encyclopedia entry.

In allowing others to decide, in the collaborative spirit that I offer, readers can also ponder this question, which I have recently seen frequently debated about Wikipedia:

Does Wikipedia's content improve over time?

Let's find out...

Here are three versions of the top left hand corner text, and readers on this thread can decide which is most appropriate for an encyclopedia (which Wikipedia is NOT, in my view).

And, readers of this thread can decide if the content improved over time to the "masterpiece" others imagine will result on Wikipedia from non-stop twiddling by others.

-------------------------------------------------

Version #1 - EARLIEST VERSION. To the best of my recollection, this is the version of top left corner text on Jeb Bush's page that existed when I arrived at Wikipedia, and no one had touched it in months:

"John Ellis 'Jeb' Bush (born February 11, 1953), a Republican, is the 43rd and current Governor of Florida. He is a prominent member of the Bush family, the younger brother of President of the United States of America George W. Bush; the older brother of Neil Bush and, the second son of former President George H. W. Bush."

Version #2 - MIDWAY. This is the version I wanted to stay, as I edited in an important historical fact about Gov Bush -- that he is the first Republican to win re-election as governor of this state. And, I edited in his other family members' names. (Someone else helped by editing in the married name of his sister, "Koch.")

"John Ellis 'Jeb" Bush (born February 11, 1953), a Republican, is the 43rd and current Governor of Florida, and the first Republican to be re-elected to the office of Florida governor. He is a prominent member of the[Bush family: the younger brother of President of the United States of America George W. Bush; the older brother of Neil Bush, Marvin Bush, and Dorothy Bush Koch; and, the second son of former President George H. W. Bush and Barbara Bush."

Version #3 - CURRENT. The latest version, currently existing -- and edited in after I was harassed off of Wikipedia:

"John Ellis 'Jeb' Bush (born February 11, 1953), a Republican, is the 43rd and current Governor of Florida. He is a prominent member of the Bush family, the younger brother of President George W. Bush and the second son of former President George H. W. Bush."

-------------------------------------------------

My vote is for Version #2. You seem to be voting for Version #3.

Although I disagree with you, we'll let others decide: Which version is best for an alleged encyclopedia? Version #1, #2 or #3?

And -- did the quality of the information improve over time?
Or did the quality decline over time?

I say te quality of the text clearly DECLINED.
--------------------

My only other comments on this topic are as follows:

a) If I was the one making final decisions on what to include in this top left corner of an historical bio in an online encyclopedia, I would always strive to link to other material information OUTSIDE the encyclopedia, all over the net, whenever and wherever that other material information may be.

Here's example: Barbara Bush is the founder of a national foundation for literacy. This foundation awards grant money. So, I would LINK to her foundation on her name in thhis top left hand corner text, to take the reader HERE:
http://www.barbarabushfoundation.com/

And, because I am truly an independent and an educator who is capable of being FAIR, if Hillary Clinton likewise had some foundation, I would link to her foundation on her name in the same top left corner, in the online encyclopedia's entry for William Clinton.

When a real online enyclopedia fails to do this, I think it is a mistake.

b) There is actually another member of the Bush Family whom I would include somewhere, though I am not sure where it is appropriate, and that is Gov Bush's late sister, Robin Bush.

A photo of Robin Bush is in the Bush Library and comes up:

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:EY0IgyojRvYJ:bushlibrary.tamu.edu/photos/gwbphotos.php+%22Robin+Bush%22&hl=en

If you want to see her as a baby, here she is:
http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/photos/photos.php?file=HS553.jpg

She died of tragically of leukemia when a child, just before turning four years old, before Gov Bush was born. But, she was still his sister. Such facts about her are mentioned here: http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:2PONeXd7GZAJ:www.americanpresident.org/history/bushgeorgew/biography/lifebeforethepresidency.common.shtml+%22Robin+Bush%22+and+%22Deceased%22+AND+%22leukemia%22&hl=en

Now, whether or not one should include Robin Bush in the above top left text may be debatable, as perhaps she should be mentioned as well in the body of the historical bio.

And whether or not to include a link to Barbara Bush's literacy foundation may be debatable.

But, to exclude from that top left corner his historic achievement; as well as the names of his mother, who is nationally known for many reaons beyond the fact of being his mother, and his sister; and, to ignore his brothers who are not presidents; and to ONLY include the two male members of his family who we know as presidents, seems to me to indicate a deliberate desire to position Gov Bush as a current presidential candidate -- even though he has already said he is not one.

That is not how an encyclopedia - a real encyclopedia - would edit the top left corner text, in my view.

To Lazlo Nibble –

In my last post above, which was to you, I gave my response to one of your complaints about my writing. We’ll call my previous post on this thread/your complaint/ and my above response “Example #1.”

As I previously mentioned, I am only writing about 3 examples, not your entire “pile on” list.

Here now is my response to a 2nd complaint you made about the content I was creating for Jeb Bush’s Wikipedia page, and we’ll call this Example #2.

I posted earlier on this thread some content I added about a Gov Bush and a school he founded. You then complained as follows:

“- Detailed description of the school, its history and mission + link to paper about the school belong in a separate entry for the school itself”

First of all, I did not give any “detailed description” -- you are off base in your criticism. I gave the most minimal of material facts because I became cognizant of the limits Wikipeda imposes on the amount of text and page length of its historical bio articles.

Second, both you and Wikipedia seem to me to be overzealous in your quest that no one learns anything about the school Gov Bush co-founded with T Willard Fair.

Wikipedia especially seems eager to denigrate their achievement, as Wikipedia changed my heading in this section from what I wrote: “Civic Leadership in Dade County, Florida” to “Civic and charitable activities.”

Why was this heading changed? Is founding a school an “activity” that people mindlessly do each day, as Wikipedia and now you are implying? Or is the founding of a school something more, as I believe? And, is the founding of an historic school, the first school of its kind – in this case, the first charter school in the state – merely an “activity” as Wikipedia claims? You and Wikipedia seem to think so. I think not.

Here is why I think the way I think: because when you put down Gov Bush for his accomplishment in this matter, you are also putting down other people who have contributed to humanity by founding a school, and you are denigrating and insulting those people as well. That is unacceptable to me, a teacher.

Would you like to tell T Willard Fair, the black activist from Miami who is head of the Greater Miami Urban League that his co-founding of that historic school with Gov Bush was simply an “activity” and not worthy of two-three short sentences of details as I wrote in Wikipedia?

That might be news to T Willard Fair that what was he was doing was a mere “Civic and charitable activity” instead of the historic founding of a school to help educate black children living in poverty.

Would you also like to inform the descendants of another Florida leader, a black woman, Mary McLeod Bethune, that the school she founded in Florida is not deserving of two-three sentences in any Wikipedia historical bio about her? As she, too, according to you and Wikipedia, was simply engaged in a mere “activity” as per the new Wikipedia heading they edited in after harassing me.

Maybe you should THINK a little more about who ELSE you are insulting when you insult Gov Bush the way you and Wikiepedia do.

Mary McLeod Bethune would probably be very surprised you are so against making a record of the achievements of black women like her who change history by offering more educational opportunities for those in need. You can learn more about her on the State of Florida’s Memory Project online here, and see seven pages of photos of her and her school, and many other pages of text and photos about her and her school:

http://www.floridamemory.com/OnlineClassroom/MaryBethune/photo_page5.cfm

Perhaps there is a real difference of opinion between what is valued by Gov Bush and what is valued by you and Wikipedia. I would have to conclude the following from your comments and from Wikipedia’s actions in changing the heading and text in this case, that: 1) education and 2) educators are at 3) the bottom rung of any ladder recognizing 4) achievement. But, maybe I am too harsh. Maybe you and Wikipedia only selectively loathe and ignore certain school founders depending on how close or far we are from an election day.

In any case, you and Wikipeda are wrong to water down the achievement and leadership of Gov Bush and others in this regard, and by that I