User:JFromm

For me, to be a Wikipedian does not mean to appreciate every feature of Wikipedia, or to "believe" without doubt that Wikipedia works (I have many doubts, as you can read below, and there are many reasons why Wikipedia can be disappointing, too). It rather means you agree that it is a good idea in general.

Fundamental information should be free and accessible for everyone, and it should not be locked by a company or firm. Like many world heritage sites of outstanding cultural or natural importance which are accesible by everyone, the common knowledge of mankind should be accessible by everyone as well. And both should be preserved for future generations by the international community.

Information which is not fundamental or generally understandable can be stored in smaller, specialized Wikis or Wikias. Our research group has setup a special Complex Adaptive Systems Group for Distributed and Complex Systems, which is more detailed than the general Wikipedia sites, at least in some specialized subjects.

Article Contributions

Wikipedia sites I have edited:

Why Wikipedia works - some comments

Common sense says that "people are selfish", "people have a biased view, prejudices and stereotypes" and "someone has to be in charge of things or they don't work". In other words, people are stupid, act usually on their own behalf, and things simply do not organize themselves. Self-organization is the exception, not the rule. What about Wikipeda? Is this simple maxim not valid for the world largest online encyclopedia? Are self-governing communities with a shared vision and passion possible? In the Wikipedia world the general motto is "Be Nice", "Don't criticize, improve" and "try to achieve a Neutral Point of View (NPoV)". It is self-organizing system based on voluntary real-time peer review.

Wikipedia seems to be at odds with the commmon sense. It is counterintuitive that it works at all. Is it a real paradox or just an apparent paradox? Why does Wikipedia work? Self-organization is possible in exceptional cases, and Wikipedia is such an exception. It doesn't work always perfectly (people may lose interest if they recognize that their Wikipedia entries don't survive, that their name is no longer mentioned on the page, or that the entries have no profound effect on their reputation after all) but the success so far is certainly amazing. The statement that "someone has to be in charge of things or they don't work" also applies to Wikipedia. Wikipedia has editors and people who control it. If you edit a site and make larger changes, you will notice soon that someone is in fact in charge of it - usually the one who has started the page or has contributed major parts of the content, or someone who is especially interested and has the article on his *watchlist*. If you are interested in an article you can put it on your watchlist.

Although they are not visible, there are people that take responsibility for a certain area, even if it is voluntarily work. There are of course other reasons why Wikipedia works. It is open, simple and big:

1. Openness, "Anyone can" feeling - like the Internet in the early days (1992-96), it is open and free, and it belongs to no one except a foundation. It is 100% free software and content: everyone has the freedom to copy, modify, and redistribute modified versions of it and its content

2. Simplicity - like HTML and HTTP it is very simple and easy to use, everyone can setup a new site and use it. It has a clear goal, simple policies like "anyone can edit" and simple principles like NPoV. Wikis are the simplest way for a group to create a website without having to know HTML.

3. Instant Feedback - it can be updated, edited and revised instantaneously with immediate feedback

All of these points are important to attract and to motivate a lot of users, which are in turn important to achieve a big system. And bigness together with instant feedback is essential to achieve a feedback illusion: the feeling that you are part of something big (and have created something big), although your real contribution is small or even insignificant, the same effect that is also exploited by most religions and other social groups through the use of social rituals.

4. Bigness - It's a big thing based on a shared vision and common values (which includes the common aversions against something)

Not every attempt to create a self-sustaining online community succeeds. It is important to have the properties mentioned above: openness, simplicity, instant feedback, and it is also important to overcome a critical value, threshold or tipping point.

Among the various reasons and motivations for contributing to online communities, the feedback illusion of increased reputation and importance (sense of community) and the feedback illusion of creating a lasting effect (sense of efficacy) are the most common.

Why Wikipedia sucks - Some critical thoughts

Wikipedia is based on illusions of users. The more Wikipedians believe it works, the better it works indeed. It doesn't work if people doubt that it works. Therefore Wikipedia can be compared to a theology, and "many scholars of Wikipedian theology theorize that if consensus is ever reached, Wikipedia will spontaneously disappear" (quote from this Wired Article). The truth is that if the majority of people and contributors stop believing in the Wikipedia idea, than it stops to work also (in the case of religions it is often similar).

The illusion of having a lasting and huge effect is created as follows: bigness in combination with a feedback illusion has a self-reinforcing rich-get-richer effect, because a big site attracts more users and gains more media attention which make the site even bigger. The feedback-illusion or "vanity effect" in Wikipedia is that the participants think they have a big and lasting effect, gain a higher reputation or a better image, and the benefit of being known to be smart about something. In reality they often have a small and non-permanent effect, gain little reputation, and are not known at all. Wikipedians think they have created something big which might endure and which can be read by every single person on the planet, but they are often not aware that their effective contribution is negligible and small.

Wikipedia can be frustrating, your contributions may be erased by others at any time or drown in the flood of other edits. Your uploaded images may be deleted by some overzealous idiot, even if you have made them yourself and say clearly where the inspiration comes from. In the end, all the work you put in it is for nothing, the promise that everyone can have a long-lasting effect through useful and meaningful contributions in order to benefit "mankind" is an illusion. The associated belief of an appropriate credit for this achievement is of course an illusion as well, only the founder himself (Jimmy Wales) gets all the credit. It is like religion, everyone feels good to be part of greater community, "fame" and "glory" in form of immortality is offered as a prize, but in the end everyone is betrayed and only the founders gets all the glory. Only the founder himself becomes immortal and endures forever, the ordinary member remains mortal and only thinks his actions will endure and last forever. In this sense, Wikipedia is the modern opium for the people. It promises to offer a chance for ordinary, everyday people (without exception) to contribute something meaningful and useful to the world, a chance which is moreover very pleasing because there is rewarding feedback on all scales: immediate, short-term, middle-term and long-term, at least as long as the system continues to grow. But this chance is only an illusion. Wikipedia attracts the bottom of the barrel of the society, those who are not smart enough to recognize that they are betrayed and that many of the desirable things associated with Wikipedia are in fact an illusion.