
“I don’t think Wikipedia can be saved at this point, but I might be wrong.” - jarcane
http://www.markbernstein.org/Jan15/Reckless.html
======
Shinkei
I apologize if Mr. Bernstein is reading this, but does anyone else feel like
this post as well as many of the others he linked in his article are
meandering, circumferential... maybe even raving? I really cannot follow his
reasoning or discussion at all. I was genuinely interested though because I
have heard all about this 'infamous' topic but have had trouble finding
objective sources (if they exist?).

The end of the post should say TL,DR:

I think Wikipedia admins are sexist and it is hurting Wikipedia.

~~~
DanBC
TL:DR The Wikipedia processes lead to a lot of discussion. That discussion
takes a long time. This can be gamed by some people to make the project
include information that is used to harrass others. This does not require
sexist admins, although they do exist. It just requires a few accounts who
know how Wikipedia works so that their posts are not instantly reverted and
ignored.

Trolling is a metaphor taken from fishing. Wikipedia is a big barrel full of
hungry fish.

I agree about the rambling post. Surely it would be better to recruit people
to guard against gaming of wikipedia; people who encorage an anti-harassment
culture and who encorage a culture of non-engagement with toxic trolls.

~~~
handelaar
_" Trolling is a metaphor taken from fishing."_

It really isn't. Perhaps you're confusing it with trawling?

~~~
schiffern
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolling_%28fishing%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolling_%28fishing%29)

------
matthewmacleod
This is more writing of the kind that draws excessively far-reaching
conclusions from little data.

Wikipedia, as an open project, is just as susceptible to "groupthink" as any
other. This certainly causes issues, possibly like the one highlighted here
(though it's difficult to figure out what the actual complaint is in this
case).

But it's not possible to draw the conclusion that "Wikipedia can't be saved"
on this basis. Broadly speaking, Wikipedia seems like a fantastic resource
that is still growing in useful ways. The fact that it has problems doesn't
really mean it can't be saved, and this conclusion seems like overblown
nonsense.

~~~
liquidise
Agreed. The prospect that wikipedia, which provides information to millions of
people, is doomed because of a couple of dubious edits could be most
charitably described as shortsighted.

------
mkrdouble
I suspect most people are up-voting this story because of the link-bait title.

The author's blog posts don't really give much in the way of a substantial
explanation of what's going on here. The impression I get is similar to other
comments here: he comes off as raving and kind of irrational? He's mad about
something on Wikipedia and he says he's been blocked, but then doesn't say
why?

If you're interested in actually figuring out what's going on, it's worthwhile
to read the actual page, which goes into a lot of detail:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Proposed_decision)

As far as I can tell, none of the journalists who wrote stories about this
read that page, and none of them talked to any of the members of the Wikipedia
ArbCom committee. Seriously. Check out Wikipedia ArbCom member Molly White's
twitter over here:

[https://twitter.com/molly0x57](https://twitter.com/molly0x57)

and
[https://twitter.com/molly0x57/status/558687811298000896](https://twitter.com/molly0x57/status/558687811298000896)

She's pretty angry about the press' interpretation of the events here, wherein
many of the articles basically flat-out said that "feminists have been carte-
blanche blocked from Wikipedia!" The press loves to feed off controversy on
Wikipedia, and also loves to not do their homework.

That said, Wikipedia does have an editor gender gap, but I'm not sure there's
a lot that can be said based on these blog posts here.

~~~
Uhhrrr
Yeah, I'm familiar with GamerGate (it is currently my favorite internet
drama), and I have trouble figuring out what Bernstein is talking about.

------
pmoriarty
I quit Wikipedia many years ago when I recognized that opinion-pushers willing
to dedicate way more time that I had could dominate articles.

That's really all it takes. Opinion-pushers can work completely within the
rules of Wikipedia, and if they collectively have more time to dedicate to
pushing their opinion than their opponents, they can use the Wikipedia process
to push their view to the exclusion of others.

Arbitration and referendums are often ineffective against this; especially
when long, long threads with lots of technical details, citations and counter-
citations are involved, and when the arbitrators or referendum participants
are themselves biased.

Most people just don't have the time or interest to read through long
arguments. So arbitrarors and voters often make decisions with scant knowledge
of what they're deciding on, or do so with a foregone conclusion in mind and
without consideration of the evidence.

Frankly, I'm surprised that Wikipedia works as well as it does, and I still
find it useful. But I just don't have the time or energy to endlessly fight
off all the opinion pushers. As a consequence, I try to take what I read on
Wikipedia with a big grain of salt.

~~~
guelo
Which sucks because the people that have the most time are those that are paid
for their time. So that means that moneyed interests can push their messages
via Wikipedia. And it will only get worse as more marketers realize this. In
other words, Wikipedia is like every other medium out there. The reason
Wikipedia works as well as it does is the same reason Google Search works as
well as it does, for topics where there is no money it does a fair job.

------
emw
A gender gaps exists on Wikipedia, and the community has been consciously
working to address that for several years.

Encouraging contributions from females has probably been the Wikimedia
Foundation's largest policy effort. Increasing Wikipedia's coverage of notable
women is a common theme in edit-a-thons, events where Wikipedians get together
at a library or cafe and edit Wikipedia together for a few hours. There is
more to do, but these are effective and useful efforts.

I am not familiar enough with the editorial conflicts surrounding Gamergate to
make an informed comment on Mark's post, but thought I would offer some
broader context.

------
grecy
I agree that Wikipedia is dead - because instead of encouraging contribution,
it's become a place dead-set on enforcing endless rules specifically to
prevent people contributing.

I run my own public wiki about a niche topic, and one of the hardest parts is
convincing potential new contributors that their contributions will be
welcomed and they won't be lynched for doing the "wrong" thing. Everyone says:
"I know how wikis work - they're a bureaucratic nightmare". I have to
continually tell people our wiki is nothing like wikipedia, other than the
"wiki" part.

I originally thought that building my wiki on the same software as wikipedia
would add credibility, when in hindsight it's done the exact opposite.

~~~
irq-1
StackOverflow has a (sightly?) different bureaucratic structure that I can't
see or evaluate for fairness, but I still make the occasional anonymous
contribution. I know from past experience with Wikipedia and others, that I'll
eventually look up a few of those contributions and see how they fared. _Based
on too little data_ I'll decide whether it's worth contributing in the future.

(I'm not going to make an account, there's no point in arguing that I should,
and the same is true for the majority of potential contributors.)

Statistical information about edits, reverts, accounts and subjects, etc...
could be a way forward. Published and standardized stats built-in to the
Wikimedia software could let visitors peek into the culture and bureaucracy of
a wiki. Lone operators like yourself, could also see who's contributing and
who's trolling.

------
nhayden
It's worth noting that the lady who was the center of the gamergate thing:

>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoe_Quinn](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoe_Quinn)

Her wikipedia entry, which would probably not exist if not for gamergame,
doesn't mention anything about the details of her ex's blog post, who her ex
is, what she was accused of, or anything that could be viewed negatively about
her. Given all of this, I would say that wikipedia is capable of handling
these situations delicately and Mark is a bit hyperbolic by saying wikipedia
is incapable of doing this.

------
mdisraeli
It should be noted that the link is to a supplemental, providing running
updates on the response to Mark's series of articles:

Infamous
[http://markbernstein.org/Jan15/Infamous.html](http://markbernstein.org/Jan15/Infamous.html)
Thoughtless
[http://markbernstein.org/Jan15/Thoughtless.html](http://markbernstein.org/Jan15/Thoughtless.html)
Careless
[http://markbernstein.org/Jan15/Careless.html](http://markbernstein.org/Jan15/Careless.html)

As such, it will be hard to read, appearing like a rant when taken on its own.
A better place to start will be with the above articles, which provide context
for the Reckless post.

------
scarmig
Why is it that the more I read about "Gamergate," the more I think it might be
the long sought after anesthetic that can put anyone into a deep sleep with
virtually zero risk?

~~~
scrollaway
It's boring stuff when you sit and listen to the _reasonable_ people, both
sides which have completely valid points which all should be taken care of
("pro-gg" caring about ethics in journalism, "anti-gg" caring about mysoginy
and sexism in games).

If you follow from that side, then you see that the entire ordeal is two sides
that have valid points and that aren't inherently conflicting.

The "conflict" is a self-feeding circle of hatred on disgusting platforms such
as twitter which only serve to point the finger. "Look at what those
mysoginistic arseholes are saying" and "Look at what those unethical
cockroaches are printing", more or less.

I spent five minutes reading through the feed of some gg-related (pro or
against, doesn't f-ing matter at this point) "moderator". I got deeply
affected. Way, way too much. The guy was fighting the "conflict" and not doing
either side any favour. I got physically ill and wanted to cry.

The worst of the worst on the internet usually doesn't affect me, but this
did, maybe because it showed me that sometimes, humanity is pretty damn
hopeless.

Thanks a lot, Twitter, for enabling such senseless hatred to develop and
literally destroy a large part of the gaming community. To enable the worst in
people and harass people, I must stress, on _both sides of the pointless
conflict_. An absolute waste.

I can only recommend people to stay the hell away from the entire subject and
ignore it. If you care about ethics in game journalism, you should stay the
hell away from gamergate. And if you want to improve the situation regarding
women/feminism in games, being "anti-gg" won't help your cause. At this point,
it's just a hopeless bunch of people arguing on twitter over the argument
itself, rather than the actual talking points.

~~~
iopq
If "pro-gg" cares about ethics in journalism, doesn't that mean that "anti-gg"
denies that journalism has poor ethics? What does mysoginy and sexism have to
do with ethics in video games?

~~~
jmillikin
The anti-GG side claims that no reasonable person would expect journalism
about video games to be ethical or free of corruption. Therefore, the "true"
purpose of GamerGate must be something more sinister.

On misogyny:

1\. Many of the gaming journalists GamerGate have specifically called out as
unethical (Nathan Grayson, Ian Miles Cheong, Shanley Kane, Arthur Chu) are
public advocates of identity feminism.

2\. Gamer culture, in general, leans more toward equality feminism. Many of
the gamer bloggers doing the calling out (Georgina Young, Jennie Bharaj,
Angela Night) are public advocates of equality feminism. Christina Hoff
Sommers, the founder of equity feminism (a related branch), has issued several
pro-gamer videos.

3\. Identity feminists consider equality feminism and equity feminism to be
reactionary, misogynist, anti-feminist movements.

With these factors combined, you get a category 5 internet shitstorm. Wealthy
white men are writing newspaper articles denouncing women as misogynists,
because those women wrote blog posts calling out the journalists as corrupt.

~~~
tomp
Thanks for this - I've never heard about the different "branches" of feminism
before, it's going to be an interesting read!

Edit: actually, could you help me get any more info (or the definition) on
"identity feminism" and the difference between it and "equality feminism"?

~~~
theorique
The wiki article is a reasonable starting point:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_and_gender_feminism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_and_gender_feminism)

------
mahouse
>The infamous draft decision of Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) on
Gamergate is worse than a crime.

~~~
tptacek
Yeah, it's not good writing.

------
vezzy-fnord
Wikipedia has always had problems with vandalism, though it has always mostly
been adept to fighting it. There's been infamous high-profile cases such as
John Seigenthaler being implied in JFK and RFK's assassinations, Bertrand
Meyer (of Eiffel fame) having his death faked, Willy on Wheels using automated
scripts to conduct mass article redirections and other shenanigans, a made up
Polish historical figure receiving mainstream coverage, and other examples.

I don't see why some instances of vandalism that are puerile but directed
towards certain women imply a downfall of Wikipedia just like that, especially
when the author is so disjointed and unable to provide concrete data. This
analysis seems awfully selective.

~~~
jarcane
The problem, as detailed quite extensively in the other articles in the
series, is that this isn't simply vandalism.

It's calculated and organized action, explicitly aimed at manipulating Wiki's
hopelessly bureaucratic and clueless system. This isn't just some dork
defacing a page, it's a whole virtual platoon of really hateful people playing
at false good faith just long enough to keep their libels active almost
perpetually, while tarring anyone who actually questions them as
obstructionist.

The worst thing is, I'm ultimately not at all surprised. I stopped even
attempting to edit anything on Wiki almost a decade ago, because the system
was as hopelessly broken then as it is now. The site is, ultimately, run by a
lot of amateur bureaucrats who're more interested in the fantasy than the
reality of the system they've concocted. Yes, it mostly works, but it's more
or less constructed to make actual good faith efforts to correct the site an
uphill battle for anything but trivialities, while making it easy for local
tribalism and policy to be used as a tool for nutjobs and fantasists to keep
their version of 'wikiality' on the front page of Google for another day.

------
Zweihander
Wikipedia is causing controversy? Glad to hear it's still working.

On a more serious note, "Wikipedia is wrong" and "Wikipedia is doomed" really
need to be separated. These clickbait headlines are getting excessively
tiring, particularly if anyone is taking them at face value. A solid attempt
at collecting the whole sum of human knowledge will obviously have issues
given the nature of how we operate.

However, claiming some >current and developing< topic being misrepresented
spells the doom of the best attempt at a concise and well-indexed source on
human history, the development of our species, and the thoughts/ideals that
our civilization stands on is a bit much.

Perspective, please.

------
josephpmay
I think the author is taking the totally wrong action. If he wants Wikipedia
to change, he should become MORE involved, not less. Like it or not Wikipedia
is considered an authority and is here to stay. As terrible as the instances
may be, the vast majority of people are not going to boycot Wikipedia for a
few occurrences of misogyny.

~~~
danielhunt
How can he become more involved, if he's been banned from contributing to the
site in the first place?

On top of that - GamerGate itself has already made it through to mainstream
media. All that's needed in this scenario is for some BBC/Sky/CNN/Fox/... news
reporter to pick up on the story, and before you know it, "Wikipedia promoting
harassment of women in technology" hits every front page in the western world.

~~~
mkrdouble
I believe he's only been temporarily blocked, but he doesn't say why (which
doesn't lead much credence to his argument, IMO)

------
adventured
Wikipedia is DMOZ. It suffers some of the same problems the DMOZ group
suffered, no coincidence.

It will be replaced in spirit by dramatically more capable 'soft AI' (I know,
I hate that term too) systems capable of answering most any question. That is,
Google is coming.

Until that happens, Wikipedia will reign supreme at what it does.

~~~
guelo
Google's AI looks up most non-commercial topics on Wikipedia.

------
allendoerfer
I have not heard of "GamerGate". While reading the first half of the article,
I thought it was intended to sound ironic. I had a hard time to find out what
side he is on and what the actual point is.

When you criticize an institution the size of Wikipedia over one aspect of
their culture and illustrate this through some fight of teenage boys vs
feminists, then conclude that the institution is therefor doomed and go on to
encourage people to tweet that they are not donating to it anymore, you risk
to sound very childish. Especially when the article is written that bad.

On the other hand, I do not know him so this could also be a fantastically
executed troll.

------
euphemize
For those having a hard time with the site color(s):

    
    
      (document.getElementById("content")).style.backgroundColor = "black";

~~~
mkrdouble
Also consider dragging one of these to your bookmark bar:
[https://readability.com/bookmarklets](https://readability.com/bookmarklets)

------
goombastic
My eyes!!

------
bobcostas55
It seems the OP is upset about the outcome but can provide no arguments
whatsoever about why it's wrongful. The arbitration pages are viewable by
everyone, you can take a look at the evidence posted there and make up your
own mind.

------
tolkienfanatic
Wikipedia has shown itself to be firmly in the SJW/Quinn/Sarkeesian/Wu camp.
So I'm not sure what he is upset about.

------
sixQuarks
off topic, but my god - that is a terrible background/font color combination.
I couldn't read the article and my eyes are still adjusting.

------
danielhunt
Just to go against the no-doubt-incoming influx of 'what's with the
colours?!', I have absolutely zero problems with reading the text on this
site.

Complaining about this sort of thing is ridiculous

~~~
mikeash
I understand the annoyance. But surely coming from a site full of power users,
people can just change the CSS, or copy/paste the text elsewhere.

~~~
danielhunt
What gets me, is that any site that pops up on the front page here that isn't
black-text-on-white-or-light-grey-background gets hammered because of the
sensitivities of those commenting.

This, despite the fact that the text on the vast majority of these sites is
_perfectly_ legible.

You are right, though - select-all+copy+paste is trivial.

... and send-to-pocket is even easier

~~~
DanBC
No one has yet complained about the text colours.

> This, despite the fact that the text on the vast majority of these sites is
> perfectly legible.

To _you_. To other people they're not perfectly legible, they're unreadable.
Why deliberately chose to exclude people?

~~~
mkrdouble
Yeah, I don't see why it's so bad to point out that the site is completely
illegible. Reminds me a bit of Wired magazine circa 1997.

~~~
mikeash
It's fine to point out that the colors are troublesome. It's bad to complain
about how you can't read it and your eyes still hurt, as if there's no way to
avoid it.

