是否能拿《The Tyranny of Structurelessness》檢視我們的運動?

,

我最近讀到《The Tyranny of Structurelessness》(全文),覺得這好像過往維基媒體運動的情況。文章裡面提到:

  • 在沒有架構的組織中,由少數人制定規則。知道規則的人察覺權力如何運作,不知道規則的人感到迷惑或誤解。(例如不斷有新參與者宣稱維基百科被政治觀點操作?)

  • 菁英群體有共同價值觀、私人交情,會形成自己的溝通網絡諮詢彼此意見,且通常不對大群體負責。(例如過往的部分補助或運動參與情況?)

  • 最危險的情況是,非正式的菁英群體掌控了無架構的團體,導致他們的權力行使不受限制。(例如過去的克羅埃西亞語維基百科?)

  • 無架構的團體規模無法變大、排他性強,並且歧視那些沒有或無法進入該團體的人。

在文章最後,作者 Jo Freeman 則列出了七點可能的民主架構建議。不知道這篇文章是否能夠成為我們維基媒體運動未來架構的一種思考方向呢?

P.S:最近閱讀的 Heather Ford《Writing the Revolution: Wikipedia and the Survival of Facts in the Digital Age》也是一本很厲害的書,但比較偏向維基百科的人類學/歷史研究。

9 Likes

Interesting, can relate to some points :thinking:

3 Likes

Slažem se. Svako organiziranje aktivnosti u Wikimedia prostoru bi trebalo započeti sa zajedničkim čitanjem ovog eseja i njegovom raspravom sa svima, bez opetovanog osvještavanja nema napredka.

6 Likes

@Ciell, @Manavpreet_Kaur, @XenoF
This can be handy for both MCDC and LDWG.
Can we, somehow collect the book (writing the revolution) for LWDG?

3 Likes

Could be that it is available via Wikimedia Library - no? Anyone has access to check?

you have laid out some excellent ideas. I would truly like to see some discussion develop here on thse great and important topics.

I’m going to give this some thought, and hopefully add some comments of my own at some point. but I would like to hear some other folks’ ideas and thoughts on this, if possible. thanks!

1 Like

One of the risks with self-selected elite is that those of us who self-select may not be very good at what we’re doing. Like most humans, I know quite a lot about certain things that are useful on wiki (in my case, punctuation in English) but almost nothing about certain other things (in my case, how to write a Lua module).

But when you have power (e.g., if you become an admin on wiki), many people assume you are an expert on everything: copyright law, interpersonal relationships, computer programming, and more. This does not lead to healthy communities.

6 Likes

Good points. Will add to this…

((especially on smaller wikis, where number of admins and number of hours they individually can commit to is small in total - admin-ship is not just tools access but effective power))

((it is even worse, because systematically there is no clear segmentation in naming rolls/type of admin for tech, content, community relations…everyone can potentially interfere with any aspects of wiki))

Yes and wikis only need very few sub-optimal contributors to keep the situation permanently sub-optimal or worse. You can keep distancing yourself constantly to remain productive, but then you feed into dynamics of deflating community going quickly for the lowest common denominator of tolerated coordination.

1 Like

I agree. It is the strength and weakness of the wikis that:

everyone can potentially interfere with any aspects of wiki

You do not need to be an admin to cause problems. For example, I am good with punctuation; I know something about health science; I seem to be better than most people at writing rules.

Should you therefore also trust me to decide whether an article about an Indian musician, or a Nigerian politician, or a Brazilian architect belongs in Wikipedia?

I don’t think so, but there is nothing to stop me from taking my very partial and/or incorrect knowledge and using it to reject your article. There isn’t even anything that requires me to have ever read the WP:SHORTCUT page that I’m telling people they are “violating”. At the English Wikipedia, I’ve seen many people claim that others are required to follow “WP:BRD”. If you read the page, one of the first things you see is the word “OPTIONAL”. No editor is required to follow BRD. But, this is also true: No editor is required to read the rules, either.