| Written 2010 by Will Johnson Email me at wjhonson@aol.com or post your comments for public view far below. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License | Follow Will Johnson on Twitter! or subscribe using my Knol Public activity feed or see Wjhonson's Fifty Most Recent Knols |
This Knol should be cited as:
"Wikipedia as a Police State" by Will Johnson, wjhonson@aol.com on Knol.Google.com
URL: http://knol.google.com/k/will-johnson/wikipedia-as-a-police-state/4hmquk6fx4gu/626
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License
URL: http://knol.google.com/k/will-johnson/wikipedia-as-a-police-state/4hmquk6fx4gu/626
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License
| Directory Project English Knol Project
|
[Edit]
Any statement, or attempt to portray, the below personal opinion as "factual" is false and malicious. I sent a message off to The Wikipedia Review to see if perhaps they'd have anything constructive to say about this article.
Wikipedia as a Police State
All of the below have happened, and continue to happen inside that huge social-project-gone-mad which is called Wikipedia. The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) and the Wikimedia Board of Trustees apparently see the actions below, as normal and acceptable behavior, since they do not care to, and have never attempted to, address it. Social scientists see it as wildly abhorrent. When these issues are brought before the bureaucracy who controls the systems, they not only show no apparent interest but actively seek to smother such direct talk. Incidents are swept under the rug, the individuals responsible for the worst abuse are allowed to continue to abuse without punishment, and the victims, not only are not compensated in any manner, but are silenced by the police system.
Those who have lived under police systems, recognize the signs of a police system. This may explain why there are so few contributors to Wikipedia from Africa, which has more police states than any other continent. This may also explain why academics have mostly rushed away from Wikipedia after brief exposure, since academics, more than most, would choose to live in a system of free exchange and vigorous debate. Things which Wikipedia actively suppresses.
That Wikipedia is a police state, may also explain why Wikipedia has fostered a "cult of personality" centered on co-founder Jimmy Wales, a person who cannot be removed from the system. Police states without a cult leader can not survive, as history teaches us. When the cult leader is removed from the system, the system collapses. And cult leaders cannot be removed by any internal rule of law. That is also a sign of a police state, and also represents the state of the Wikimedia Foundation, i.e. there is no internal method by which Jimmy Wales could be removed.
When one individual can jail another, on any charge or no charge, for an indefinite period of time, that is a police state.
When the jailed individual has no method of release other then submitting to some arbitrary and capricious requirement imposed by that abusive individual. That is a police state.
When an individual can be jailed with no hope of trial by jury, no method of release-by-bail, no private or court-appointed attorney, no system that protects the individual from the police. That is a police state.
When an appeal to another person who could possibly obtain redress, redirects the person back into the same abusive police-controlled system, from which there is no alternative check-and-balance, at the individual level. That is a police state.
All of these qualities describe the system of governance upon which Wikipedia runs. There are no checks and balances at the individual level to combat the police-state system.
A few years ago, Barry Kort, beat me to the punch, on describing what type of governance system this mimics. He created the article "The Governance Model of Wikipedia" where in his opinion, the Wikipedia governance model mimics pre-Hammurabi tribal culture. He posted up his article on The Wikipedia Review at this link where among others Kato remarks:
"Meanwhile, the dream of a "new community", that excites so many insiders, died because as Moulton says, they ran before they could walk. They failed to initiate the kinds of checks and balances a working community needs. Leaving an increasingly barbaric, pre-historical mire of deepening divisions and feuds. The longer it goes on, and the longer individuals stay with the site, the worse it will get."
[Edit]
His Knol goes to the heart of how people are banned by "the community". However my own Knol here, goes to the heart of how single policepersons are able to effectively "block" anyone, at anytime, for any reason or for no reason. And how the individual blocked in this manner, has no effective recourse. So our two Knols are addressing two related but separate governance problems.
The emails below, are just extra random pointedness, not necessarily directly tied to this article.
| ||||||||||
The moderators of this list, who as they have stated, answer to no one, not even the WMF, have decided that I cannot speak in a plain English fashion.
Everything I say must be couched in polite expressions, no matter what is actually happening. Is this list really for polite conversation in all cases? Can we not speak frankly? Are we to be censored when our political speech makes people uncomfortable?
That's what on the table today.
W
| ||||||||||
I would like to respond to you, but the moderators have decided that my form of plain direct language, is so embarrassing to them and the WMF that they have to stuff a sock down my throat, tie me up and then beat me unconscious.
The moderators have also decided that they are not subject to recall, and not subject to election, but really a self-perpetuating oligarchy whose members are selected from among their own small clan of two or three. They answer to no one and nothing, they are subject to no rules of behavior whatsoever. They can do exactly as they please without any form of restraint.
They can allow any speech they want, and disallow any, and will never face any repercussions for their actions. This is moderation at the WMF. Exposing it for what it is, revealing the festering open wound cannot be allowed.
W
| ||||||||||
Which illustrates my point quite well, that our [Wikipedia] society is one in which indefinite detention by the police, with no editor-representation, no conflicting power to confront the police... must stop. This is just one in a long long line of arbitrary detentions by the Wiki police force, against which the editors have no adequate protection.
| ||||||||||
Geni you keep missing the point here.
This conversation started, IIRC, about something related to academics, how to get them, how to retain them, or something of that sort.
I would submit, that we have dozens... hundreds... perhaps thousands of academics whose first encounter, or tenth encounter with our system, was when they were summarily cast into prison, without the right of counsel, for an indefinite period at the whim of the police, without the right to a court-appointed attorney, without the right of appeal or speedy trial, and without the right to a jury of their peers, or even a trial at all. The vast majority do not have the time or inclination to wander through our byzantine system to try to figure out how to combat the imprisonment, and we do very close to nothing to tell them how or why or who or what.
That is a serious issue to me. I wish I could use the language I'd like to use to describe it, but some here think speaking directly is a crime. If anyone reading this is reading anger or any other *emotion* into this missive, they are wrong. I'm writing without any emotion whatsoever. Any emotion you are reading, is your own product.
Geni, you seem to be very carefully avoiding attacking the bull head-on.
| ||||||||||
In a message dated 12/5/2010 5:42:49 AM Pacific Standard Time, sterkebak@gmail.com writes:
Sinds its not only English Wikipedia but foundation wide I can say we have
people becomming Arbcom without being a Admin.. We had CheckUsers without
being a admin. So its not a ladder.
{{Fact}}
If 90% of the judges in your country (whatever that is) were first policemen and it was assumed or expected that that was the normal situation, you are telling me, you would not be concerned about that?
If 90% or even say... 50% of all the lawyers, and all the legislators, and all the merchants... had first been policemen, you would not be concerned about that then?
That is what we call a police state. When the police can inter you for an indefinite period and your only recourse is to another policemen. No judge, no bail bondsmen, no lawyers, no phone call.... That describes Wikipedia policy. There is no recourse for the non-admin editor who is interred in prison. None.
W
| ||||||||||
But John did you check that these *two* people you mentioned who are crats but not admins, were *never* admins?
At any rate a crat cannot let you out of jail. Can they?
Would they not simply say "speak with the man who beat you up first? try to settle it with the person who abused you?"
Our system is broken. Has been for a long time.
When an abused user has to go to their abuser and crave their forgiveness, that is a broken system. I could and have used stronger language in the past to describe it.
W
| ||||||||||
Geni you seem to be missing the point.
The police state is one in which, when you're harassed by the police, your sole alternative is to go to another police person.
In an actual democratic society that is not a police state, you have many alternatives. On Wikipedia, a single police person can put you in jail, where you can stay for an indefinite period, solely determine by that police person. Period.
Your only recourse is to complain to other police persons to help you get out.
That is a police state. That is the way Wikipedia operates. And that's what must change.
We need at least one other alternative ladder of roles that is in direct confrontation with the police. That is the normal situation in democratic societies that are not police states. Legislators did not become that by first becoming policemen. County administrators were not first policemen. Lawyers were not first policemen. Judges were not first policemen.
In Wikipedia however, every low level function, every single one of them, is in the control of the police.
Until that changes, we're a police state.
W
| ||||||||||
In a message dated 12/4/2010 6:50:38 AM Pacific Standard Time, geniice@gmail.com writes:
Actually we have at least 3.
Editor, admin bureaucrat, steward, dev.
everyone, arbcom
Everyone, foundation, foundation board.
Not three Geni, one.
Has anyone become Arbcom without being an admin?
Has anyone become Bureaucrat without being an admin?
Has anyone become Foundation Board without being an admin?
It's all one ladder.
Sure it's *possible* for a non-admin to be elected to Arbcom, but when it's never happened, the truth should be apparent.
W
| ||||||||||
Geni you seem to be missing the point.
The police state is one in which, when you're harassed by the police, your sole alternative is to go to another police person.
In an actual democratic society that is not a police state, you have many alternatives. On Wikipedia, a single police person can put you in jail, where you can stay for an indefinite period, solely determine by that police person. Period.
Your only recourse is to complain to other police persons to help you get out.
That is a police state. That is the way Wikipedia operates. And that's what must change.
We need at least one other alternative ladder of roles that is in direct confrontation with the police. That is the normal situation in democratic societies that are not police states. Legislators did not become that by first becoming policemen. County administrators were not first policemen. Lawyers were not first policemen. Judges were not first policemen.
In Wikipedia however, every low level function, every single one of them, is in the control of the police.
Until that changes, we're a police state.
W
| ||||||||||
In a message dated 12/4/2010 6:50:38 AM Pacific Standard Time, geniice@gmail.com writes:
Actually we have at least 3.
Editor, admin bureaucrat, steward, dev.
everyone, arbcom
Everyone, foundation, foundation board.
Not three Geni, one.
Has anyone become Arbcom without being an admin?
Has anyone become Bureaucrat without being an admin?
Has anyone become Foundation Board without being an admin?
It's all one ladder.
Sure it's *possible* for a non-admin to be elected to Arbcom, but when it's never happened, the truth should be apparent.
W
Wjhonson's Knols - Total Pageviews - Independent Counter
See also "The Governance Model of Wikipedia."
http://knol.google.com/k/barry-kort/the-governance-model-of-wikipedia/3iyoslgwsp412/27#
Barry Kort - 08 Dec 2010