Reactions to the Donna Strickland cotroversy
Posted: Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:47 am
So, Donna Strickland won the Nobel Prize, and the media noticed she never had a Wikipedia page until the award. The controversy is not as interesting as the reactions of the Wikipedians.......
Firstly, there's the time-worn tactic of identifying small and frankly insignificant errors in the reporting, so as to discredit and thus ignore the entire coverage. It is pathetic and morally repugnant, but in their tiny minds, it gives them some comfort. They would perhaps not be so comfortable if the media began taking a close look at the aftermath of incidents like this, where you will see countless examples of established Wikipedians struggling to get a clear picture in their own minds of what actually happened, let alone why.
Second, they are blaming the novice editor who tried to get one created, but apparently didn't do a good enough job of convincing the Wikipedians she deserved an article. It shouldn't even need to be said that, in theory at least, this is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. They know. They just do not care.
The Wikipedians have been told for a very long time now, that their disinterested, impersonal and often incomprehensible approach to novices, isn't effective. Yet at the heart of this fuckup is an institutional reliance on a system of draft approval which is everything I just mentioned.
Indeed, a while ago, when they decided it would be a good idea to prevent non-autoconfirmed accounts from creating articles directly, instead shunting them to the draft space, they were told the draft system was already underperforming, and this would only make things worse. Now we see how. But they were warned. They knew, they just did not care.
There are some who are blaming the specific inclusion criteria they have for professors, and people in general. As if somehow that absolves them of blame. Well, to point out the fucking obvious, it is the Wikipedians who write their own inclusion criteria. As a secondary issue, it is not pervasive to blame the criteria, when these fuckers can't even agree amongst themselves which standard had precedence, and which, if any, the pre-Nobel draft actually met. They know this sort of confusion and dispute is common and widespread even among experienced Wikipedians, so newcomers don't stand a chance unless actively tutored. They just do not care.
They apparently accept, while not seeing the irony, that if they weren't forcing people to use the draft system, their old system of allowing a well meaning newcomer just looking to get recognition for a women in science, to simply write the page and then have it undergo trial by deletion debate, while undignified and chaotic, would have undoubtedly arrived at the correct outcome.
They're not even above putting the blame on the group of Wikipedians who have specifically committed to expanding Wikipedia's coverage of women in science. Not working hard enough, it was said.
There are, of course, those who are trying to put the blame on academia and the media. They didn't make her famous enough, because bias, so Wikipedia is blameless, as it can only follow the biases of the world. Well, yes, except I really have to point out again, SEVERAL OF YOU FUCKERS THINK SHE WOULD HAVE PASSED YOUR OWN INCLUSION CRITERIA. Get that little wrinkle sorted out with some degree of certainty (perhaps treat it like a science experiment?) and maybe we can talk. Maybe about how some argue Wikipedia has a duty to be actively correcting for existing real world bias, for those women who would not meet your current inclusion criteria.
And finally we get to the best excuse of them all. It's not their fault, it is the general public's fault. They, through their media spokespeople, are apparently not nearly grateful enough for the miracle that Wikipedia represents. Do they not appreciate that Wikipedians are not paid, they lament? Oh, the mannity.
Be more grateful for what we do manage, is the cry. Followed rather predictably by the claim that shit like this would not happen if you lazy fucks got off your asses and became Wikipedians. And you, you bastard journalists, if you spent the time you did writing these pieces criticising us on actually writing for Wikipedia, it definitely would not have happened. This was said by, among others, a Wikipedian recently profiled by the Washington Post for merely being a prolific Wikipedian. Quartz even gets a roasting for not having written about this woman before. I'm not making this up, you could not make this up, as the saying goes.
What is important to note here's is that no lessons will be learned. There will be no change in any policies, there will be no change in how Wikipedians react to external criticism, there will be no change in how Wikipedia interacts with newcomers, and there will absolutely be no change in the relentless march down the road of erecting more and more barriers in front those who want to put worthy content in, so as to ease the burden on those who want to keep bad stuff out.
As one observed, Wikipedia resource management is a zero sum game. A Wikipedian spending an hour to walk a newbie through task like how to properly write the page for someone like Strickland, is an hour they're not fighting off the hoards of vandals, or indeed writing their own perfect encyclopedia content.
Except it is not though, is it? I may not have a Nobel Prize in Astrophysics, but my Deep Space telescope does stretch back to a time in the Universe when Wikipedia was still expanding, evidently not struggling to find enough editors to both add new content and keep the existing stuff from bursting into flames. So much so there was talk of turning all that surplus editor enthusiasm into a drive for quality, not quantity. They call it 2006.
It was about this time that the first serious moves were made to erect barriers to participation. Semi-protection was invented. And the Wikipedians, realising these magical new tools meant they didn't have to spend so much time on grunt work, they lapped it up. And so, ever more restrictions were invented, right up to the mess of draft space and a multitude of user rights and protection levels that even I no longer properly understand, and I study these weirdos as a hobby!
Not for nothing then, that Wikipedia began declining in 2007-8, and it is still in decline now. That's the real truth behind the reason there was no article on Strickland. If there ever was an upper limit to how many people in this world might have become experienced Wikipedians, they failed to even come close. They needed to reach for the Moon, and got as far as Cleveland. They know this. They just don't care.
Do not look for sources of hope of signs of a turnaround. They are not there. There's no automation or grant or editathon that can fix this problem. Jimmy Wales checked out a while ago, he knows the score, and they hate him for it. He hasn't even bothered to reply to their notification of yet another scandal. He's gotta be sick to the back teeth of it all.
There will be another controversy like this, and a carbon copy repeat of all the bullshit excuses. Rinse and repeat, until it eventually dies. The singularity.
HTD.
Firstly, there's the time-worn tactic of identifying small and frankly insignificant errors in the reporting, so as to discredit and thus ignore the entire coverage. It is pathetic and morally repugnant, but in their tiny minds, it gives them some comfort. They would perhaps not be so comfortable if the media began taking a close look at the aftermath of incidents like this, where you will see countless examples of established Wikipedians struggling to get a clear picture in their own minds of what actually happened, let alone why.
Second, they are blaming the novice editor who tried to get one created, but apparently didn't do a good enough job of convincing the Wikipedians she deserved an article. It shouldn't even need to be said that, in theory at least, this is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. They know. They just do not care.
The Wikipedians have been told for a very long time now, that their disinterested, impersonal and often incomprehensible approach to novices, isn't effective. Yet at the heart of this fuckup is an institutional reliance on a system of draft approval which is everything I just mentioned.
Indeed, a while ago, when they decided it would be a good idea to prevent non-autoconfirmed accounts from creating articles directly, instead shunting them to the draft space, they were told the draft system was already underperforming, and this would only make things worse. Now we see how. But they were warned. They knew, they just did not care.
There are some who are blaming the specific inclusion criteria they have for professors, and people in general. As if somehow that absolves them of blame. Well, to point out the fucking obvious, it is the Wikipedians who write their own inclusion criteria. As a secondary issue, it is not pervasive to blame the criteria, when these fuckers can't even agree amongst themselves which standard had precedence, and which, if any, the pre-Nobel draft actually met. They know this sort of confusion and dispute is common and widespread even among experienced Wikipedians, so newcomers don't stand a chance unless actively tutored. They just do not care.
They apparently accept, while not seeing the irony, that if they weren't forcing people to use the draft system, their old system of allowing a well meaning newcomer just looking to get recognition for a women in science, to simply write the page and then have it undergo trial by deletion debate, while undignified and chaotic, would have undoubtedly arrived at the correct outcome.
They're not even above putting the blame on the group of Wikipedians who have specifically committed to expanding Wikipedia's coverage of women in science. Not working hard enough, it was said.
There are, of course, those who are trying to put the blame on academia and the media. They didn't make her famous enough, because bias, so Wikipedia is blameless, as it can only follow the biases of the world. Well, yes, except I really have to point out again, SEVERAL OF YOU FUCKERS THINK SHE WOULD HAVE PASSED YOUR OWN INCLUSION CRITERIA. Get that little wrinkle sorted out with some degree of certainty (perhaps treat it like a science experiment?) and maybe we can talk. Maybe about how some argue Wikipedia has a duty to be actively correcting for existing real world bias, for those women who would not meet your current inclusion criteria.
And finally we get to the best excuse of them all. It's not their fault, it is the general public's fault. They, through their media spokespeople, are apparently not nearly grateful enough for the miracle that Wikipedia represents. Do they not appreciate that Wikipedians are not paid, they lament? Oh, the mannity.
Be more grateful for what we do manage, is the cry. Followed rather predictably by the claim that shit like this would not happen if you lazy fucks got off your asses and became Wikipedians. And you, you bastard journalists, if you spent the time you did writing these pieces criticising us on actually writing for Wikipedia, it definitely would not have happened. This was said by, among others, a Wikipedian recently profiled by the Washington Post for merely being a prolific Wikipedian. Quartz even gets a roasting for not having written about this woman before. I'm not making this up, you could not make this up, as the saying goes.
What is important to note here's is that no lessons will be learned. There will be no change in any policies, there will be no change in how Wikipedians react to external criticism, there will be no change in how Wikipedia interacts with newcomers, and there will absolutely be no change in the relentless march down the road of erecting more and more barriers in front those who want to put worthy content in, so as to ease the burden on those who want to keep bad stuff out.
As one observed, Wikipedia resource management is a zero sum game. A Wikipedian spending an hour to walk a newbie through task like how to properly write the page for someone like Strickland, is an hour they're not fighting off the hoards of vandals, or indeed writing their own perfect encyclopedia content.
Except it is not though, is it? I may not have a Nobel Prize in Astrophysics, but my Deep Space telescope does stretch back to a time in the Universe when Wikipedia was still expanding, evidently not struggling to find enough editors to both add new content and keep the existing stuff from bursting into flames. So much so there was talk of turning all that surplus editor enthusiasm into a drive for quality, not quantity. They call it 2006.
It was about this time that the first serious moves were made to erect barriers to participation. Semi-protection was invented. And the Wikipedians, realising these magical new tools meant they didn't have to spend so much time on grunt work, they lapped it up. And so, ever more restrictions were invented, right up to the mess of draft space and a multitude of user rights and protection levels that even I no longer properly understand, and I study these weirdos as a hobby!
Not for nothing then, that Wikipedia began declining in 2007-8, and it is still in decline now. That's the real truth behind the reason there was no article on Strickland. If there ever was an upper limit to how many people in this world might have become experienced Wikipedians, they failed to even come close. They needed to reach for the Moon, and got as far as Cleveland. They know this. They just don't care.
Do not look for sources of hope of signs of a turnaround. They are not there. There's no automation or grant or editathon that can fix this problem. Jimmy Wales checked out a while ago, he knows the score, and they hate him for it. He hasn't even bothered to reply to their notification of yet another scandal. He's gotta be sick to the back teeth of it all.
There will be another controversy like this, and a carbon copy repeat of all the bullshit excuses. Rinse and repeat, until it eventually dies. The singularity.
HTD.
