X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Mon Jun  1 01:29:40 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <25890ca0905311315ne38f054s5b3545bb34ede49e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <929ed1ec0905311301o4ef132d2xa3674fbdd218fe3c@mail.gmail.com>
	<25890ca0905311315ne38f054s5b3545bb34ede49e@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 02:29:30 +0300
Message-ID: <929ed1ec0905311629u58e9b022r6a7c458f1a7f5492@mail.gmail.com>
From: Digwuren <digwuren@gmail.com>
To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
X-Spam_score: 0.9
X-Spam_score_int: 9
X-Spam_bar: /
X-Spam_report: Spam detection software,
	running on the system "pakkun.mirky.net", has
	identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message
	has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or
	label similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
	the administrator of that system for details.
	Content preview:  On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 23:15, radek szulga
	<rsszulga@gmail.com> wrote: > So... you're saying Wikipedia is like
	prison? Sooner or later you have > to join a gang or other gangs will
	get you. I can't claim credit for this interpretation. I heard it
	already two years ago. I can't recall the source right now, but we
	discussed it with Suva at length. Only the DefendEachOther connection
	is a fresh hunch of mine. [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (0.9 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ----------------------
	--------------------------------------------------
	-2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	1.4 HTML_10_20             BODY: Message is 10% to 20% HTML
	1.7 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST      RBL: Envelope sender in
	postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org
	0.5 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7-deb (2006-10-05) on 
	pakkun.mirky.net
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_20,
	DNS_FROM_RFC_POST,HTML_10_20,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no 
	version=3.1.7-deb
Subject: Re: [WPM] On wikistablishments
X-BeenThere: folks@wikipedometer.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
List-Id: Wikipedia statistics <folks.wikipedometer.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks>,
	<mailto:folks-request@wikipedometer.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:folks@wikipedometer.net>
List-Help: <mailto:folks-request@wikipedometer.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks>,
	<mailto:folks-request@wikipedometer.net?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0595748584598114598=="
Mime-version: 1.0
Sender: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
Errors-To: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
X-Spam_score: 0.9
X-Spam_score_int: 9
X-Spam_bar: /
X-Spam_report: Spam detection software, running on the system "pakkun.mirky.net", has
	identified this incoming email as possible spam.  The original message
	has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label
	similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
	the administrator of that system for details.
	Content preview:  On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 23:15, radek szulga
	<rsszulga@gmail.com> wrote: > So... you're saying Wikipedia is like
	prison? Sooner or later you have > to join a gang or other gangs will
	get you. I can't claim credit for this interpretation. I heard it
	already two years ago. I can't recall the source right now, but we
	discussed it with Suva at length. Only the DefendEachOther connection is
	a fresh hunch of mine. [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (0.9 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
	-2.6 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	1.4 HTML_10_20             BODY: Message is 10% to 20% HTML
	1.7 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST      RBL: Envelope sender in
	postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org
	0.5 AWL                    AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list

--===============0595748584598114598==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001485f7786c6b067e046b3dae9f

--001485f7786c6b067e046b3dae9f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 23:15, radek szulga <rsszulga@gmail.com> wrote:

> So... you're saying Wikipedia is like prison? Sooner or later you have
> to join a gang or other gangs will get you.


I can't claim credit for this interpretation.  I heard it already two years
ago.  I can't recall the source right now, but we discussed it with Suva at
length.  Only the DefendEachOther connection is a fresh hunch of mine.

It boils down to accumulation of power.  Unless you're only editing articles
that nobody would ever argue on, you're bound to find a conflict sooner or
later.  Solving such a conflict in a reasonable manner is hard in any large
community, and Wikipedia's policies take extra care to make it even harder,
so external factors -- such as cabal power -- will inevitably be invoked by
some participant.  (In game theory sense, solving wikiconflicts through
reason is an unstable strategy on Wikipedia because every single participant
can play dirty instead, and thus derive an advantage.  In collegial wikis --
usually, small wikis -- other social factors can make such horseplay
unfeasible, and thusly, solving conflcits through collegial discussion can
remain a stable strategy.)

When the conflict ends with one side winning and one losing, the winning
side will be socially rewarded, and over time, will gather more members.
 The cabals that consistently lose tend to break apart.  Thus, we have two
sides of a feedback loop: exercise of cabal power improves chances of
winning conflicts, and winning conflicts increases cabal power.  In such a
system, the feedback loop facilitates a sort of evolutionary pressure that
favours accumulation of power into cabals and disfavours loners.

So, yes, if you edit *anything* arguable on Wikipedia, you'll have to join a
cabal or the other cabals will get you.  Naturally, most cabals are pretty
informal, but that's more of Piotrus' kettle of fish.  He's a sociologist,
I'm just a self-styled mathematician :)

That the Arbcom Case Named After Me banned me and Petri Krohn in 2007 was
probably predictable.  We were the only active loners.  Everybody else
involved in this case was either not active enough to raise concern in the
existing cabals, or had connections to an established cabal and was thus
socially much harder to sanction.  Similarly, the Arbcom Case Named After
Piotrus ended in the general amnesty because *everybody* involved had
support of a well-entrenched cabal; there were no viable scapegoats.

-- 
Andres Soolo

--001485f7786c6b067e046b3dae9f
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 23:15, radek szulga <spa=
n dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:rsszulga@gmail.com">rsszulga@gmail.com<=
/a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:=
0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
So... you&#39;re saying Wikipedia is like prison? Sooner or later you have<=
br>
to join a gang or other gangs will get you.</blockquote><div><br></div><div=
>I can&#39;t claim credit for this interpretation. =C2=A0I heard it already=
 two years ago. =C2=A0I can&#39;t recall the source right now, but we discu=
ssed it with Suva at length. =C2=A0Only the DefendEachOther connection is a=
 fresh hunch of mine.</div>
<div><br></div><div>It boils down to accumulation of power. =C2=A0Unless yo=
u&#39;re only editing articles that nobody would ever argue on, you&#39;re =
bound to find a conflict sooner or later. =C2=A0Solving such a conflict in =
a reasonable manner is hard in any large community, and Wikipedia&#39;s pol=
icies take extra care to make it even harder, so external factors -- such a=
s cabal power -- will inevitably be invoked by some participant. =C2=A0(In =
game theory sense, solving wikiconflicts through reason is an unstable stra=
tegy on Wikipedia because every single participant can play dirty instead, =
and thus derive an advantage. =C2=A0In collegial wikis -- usually, small wi=
kis -- other social factors can make such horseplay unfeasible, and thusly,=
 solving conflcits through collegial discussion can remain a stable strateg=
y.)</div>
<div><br></div><div>When the conflict ends with one side winning and one lo=
sing, the winning side will be socially rewarded, and over time, will gathe=
r more members. =C2=A0The cabals that consistently lose tend to break apart=
. =C2=A0Thus, we have two sides of a feedback loop: exercise of cabal power=
 improves chances of winning conflicts, and winning conflicts increases cab=
al power. =C2=A0In such a system, the feedback loop facilitates a sort of e=
volutionary pressure that favours accumulation of power into cabals and dis=
favours loners.</div>
<div><br></div><div>So, yes, if you edit *anything* arguable on Wikipedia, =
you&#39;ll have to join a cabal or the other cabals will get you. =C2=A0Nat=
urally, most cabals are pretty informal, but that&#39;s more of Piotrus&#39=
; kettle of fish. =C2=A0He&#39;s a sociologist, I&#39;m just a self-styled =
mathematician :)</div>
<div><br></div><div>That the Arbcom Case Named After Me banned me and Petri=
 Krohn in 2007 was probably predictable. =C2=A0We were the only active lone=
rs. =C2=A0Everybody else involved in this case was either not active enough=
 to raise concern in the existing cabals, or had connections to an establis=
hed cabal and was thus socially much harder to sanction. =C2=A0Similarly, t=
he Arbcom Case Named After Piotrus ended in the general amnesty because *ev=
erybody* involved had support of a well-entrenched cabal; there were no via=
ble scapegoats.</div>
<div><br></div><div>--=C2=A0<br></div></div>Andres Soolo<br>

--001485f7786c6b067e046b3dae9f--


--===============0595748584598114598==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia statistics discussion list
folks@wikipedometer.net
http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks

--===============0595748584598114598==--


