X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Tue Jun  2 04:05:08 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4A238557.1010605@post.pl>
References: <929ed1ec0905311301o4ef132d2xa3674fbdd218fe3c@mail.gmail.com>
	<25890ca0905311315ne38f054s5b3545bb34ede49e@mail.gmail.com>
	<929ed1ec0905311629u58e9b022r6a7c458f1a7f5492@mail.gmail.com>
	<4A238557.1010605@post.pl>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 12:04:48 +1000
Message-ID: <4f045a880906011904t114e1a7cx9b218b2d26d05b9d@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin <martint20@gmail.com>
To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
X-Spam_score: -0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 0
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 Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Piotr Konieczny
	<piokon@post.pl> wrote: > 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 [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-0.1 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ----------------------
	--------------------------------------------------
	-2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	1.7 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST      RBL: Envelope sender in
	postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org
	0.8 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=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
	DNS_FROM_RFC_POST 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: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
Errors-To: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
X-Spam_score: -0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 0
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 Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Piotr Konieczny
	<piokon@post.pl> wrote: > 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 [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-0.1 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
	-2.6 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	1.7 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST      RBL: Envelope sender in
	postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org
	0.8 AWL                    AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list

On Mon, Jun 1, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Piotr Konieczny <piokon@post.pl> wrote:
> 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!

It is an excellent analysis, but don't under any circumstances publish
it as a wiki-essay, it would give the opposition half a clue! :)

Martin

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

