X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Mon Jun  1 09:38:30 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
Message-ID: <4A238557.1010605@post.pl>
Date: Mon, 01 Jun 2009 09:37:59 +0200
From: Piotr Konieczny <piokon@post.pl>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
	rv:1.8.1.19) Gecko/20081204 MultiZilla/1.8.3.4e SeaMonkey/1.1.14
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
References: <929ed1ec0905311301o4ef132d2xa3674fbdd218fe3c@mail.gmail.com>	<25890ca0905311315ne38f054s5b3545bb34ede49e@mail.gmail.com>
	<929ed1ec0905311629u58e9b022r6a7c458f1a7f5492@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <929ed1ec0905311629u58e9b022r6a7c458f1a7f5492@mail.gmail.com>
X-Spam_score: -2.3
X-Spam_score_int: -22
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:  Digwuren wrote: > On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 23:15, radek
	szulga <rsszulga@gmail.com > <mailto: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 [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-2.3 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ----------------------
	--------------------------------------------------
	0.1 FORGED_RCVD_HELO       Received: contains a forged HELO
	-2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	0.1 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=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
	FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=unavailable 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: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
Errors-To: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
X-Spam_score: -2.3
X-Spam_score_int: -22
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:  Digwuren wrote: > On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 23:15, radek
	szulga <rsszulga@gmail.com > <mailto: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 [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-2.3 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
	0.1 FORGED_RCVD_HELO       Received: contains a forged HELO
	-2.6 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	0.1 AWL                    AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list

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

An excellent analysis, I'd love to see this made into a wiki-essay!


-- 
Prokonsul Piotrus aka Piotr Konieczny       |||____  __ __
                                       I=I====__|_|I__I=>
"Lennier, get us the hell out of here."     |||
"Initiating 'getting the hell out of here' maneuver."
  -- Ivanova and Lennier in Babylon 5:"The Hour of the Wolf"

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

