Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-11-11/In the media

Vox

• I can definitely see where Nate Silver is coming from about Vox. Back in April, Silver called out Vox, telling them to Stop stealing his charts. He also mentioned still being a fan of the website but I would not be surprised if he isn't anymore. GamerPro64 21:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Sanger

I don't know why people keep listening to Larry Sanger. I mean, look at Citizendium, a project he created to be Wikipedia as how he thought it should be run, then threw out Neutral Point of View, and encouraged equal time for climate change denial and science, evolution denial and science, and gave control of alternative medicine articles over to the practitioners of such dubious treatments. The man seems like a bitter crank who wants Wikipedia to fail, because he thinks he knows better (when he clearly does not). Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps just a fleeting hype. Personally my ten-year editing experience in English WP is overwhelmingly positive, despite past blocks, topic bans and disagreements. Morons are everywhere, but as long as the majority works in a cooperative and supporting manner, the result is impressive and increasingly so. Brandmeister^talk 22:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I wonder whether he knows the current wikipedia well enough to justify comments such as "Wikipedia never solved the problem of how to organize itself in a way that didn't lead to mob rule"? He may be an expert on our early days but is he up to speed with where we are now? For all its faults Arbcom exists and usually avoids mob rule, and the perennial attempts to augment it with mob rule for community deadminship never quite prevail. As for trolling, I didn't join until some time after his departure, but I rather think that trolling is one of those irregular English verbs that vary with one's perspective. Someone who empowered a homeopath with special status as Citizendium's lead expert on "the healing arts" might well regard many Wikipedians as trolls. If he is criticising something that he has not maintained his expertise on, he in turn might well be considered by some of us as making ill informed and negative comments. ϢereSpielChequers 13:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

You mean that news outlets write articles about people without interviewing them first? Shock! Horror! shoy (reactions) 15:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Let me play Captain Obvious here. Wikipedia is an incredibly expansive work, very well implemented despite some kinks (and corporate bias), with thousands of dedicated and able and not-always-cranky volunteer editors, and a resounding success beyond anyone's wildest dreams. Any criticism that denies these things is the one who is trolling (or perhaps ginning up the cottage industry of Wikihate). That said, there are many useful criticisms of this place that need to be addressed. But looking to a guy who got his own "better" encyclopedia project horribly off-track isn't going to be of much assistance. Wikipedia is today the Internet of Knowledge. Google results are us. Slam it all you like. Or, one can work to make it better, the ol' constructive way. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• I just stumbled upon Citizendium's "Charter" that it ratified in 2010. It's interesting to note some of the starker differences in structure compared to Wikipedia. I can already envision the kind of response it would receive if any one of them were proposed here. The main thing is that it seems to have a "top-down" governance, as opposed to Wikipedia's "bottom-up (in most cases)" governance. The three principal bodies are the Citizendium Council, which has final say on all content disputes; the Managing Editor, who offers interpretations on policy and can make "executive decisions" to enforce policy; and the Constabulary, which is responsible for enforcing behavior. Users (known as Citizens) can petition the Council for a referendum if it feels they have erred in a decision, and there is a formal appeals process as well. Interesting. Mz7 (talk) 01:30, 21 November 2015 (UTC) Might have spoke too soon with the "top-down" description, after digging further and finding their Myths vs. Fact page. Mz7 (talk) 01:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I was there, almost from the start. Top down was the way it certainly did run at the start, regardless of what may now be claimed on the site . Larry appointed the people who could approve articles (I was one, fwiw), he decided the policies, he settled the disputes, he let people have exclusive rights to key articles and kept others from working on them. Eventually, he did accept a formal structure, and eventually, he did remove himself from the line of command. By that time, too many people had left, myself included. DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)