Why Wikipedians are so weird?

Matrix vs. eXistenZ

Both The Matrix and eXistenZ ask the question “what is real?” It is the way that the films focus on the question which makes the difference. In eXistenZ, the games that the film characters play becomes their world and it becomes impossible to tell, for viewers as well as the characters, at any point whether or not they are in fact still playing. Reality becomes irrelevant. It is possible that the film takes place in a virtual reality and this suggests that the blurred lines between reality and a game is impossible to make. The Matrix is more concerned about how the definition of reality can be bent.

In the scene where Morpheus brings Neo into the localized Matrix, they discuss these questions. Morpheus says something along the lines of if being able to feel, see, and smell something makes it real, then the Matrix can be considered real. The film seems to suggest that reality is subjective, that it all boils down to how our minds perceive what is on the outside. One of the powerful things about The Matrix that is lacking from eXistenZ is that at some point you wonder how we can know that we’re not ourselves in some form of Matrix, and I think the answer is that we really can’t. The fact is that we could just as easily be living in a simulated world. It may seem almost pointless to think about, but that’s the best part. The fact that it is on some levels irrelevant that what we experience might not be the “truth” says something about reality, that it is really relative.

We care about this question about as much as the people stuck in the Matrix might. For them the Matrix is reality just as much as the Nebuchadnezzar and Zion are reality for those outside it. Then the question becomes is “true” reality actually more valuable and if so why? Is ignorance bliss?

Gender Gap on Wikipedia

While researching gender bender issues on Wikipedia, I came across two articles in NPR and the New York Times that claimed that there was a huge gender gap on Wikipedia. Both supported this claim by citing the Wikimedia Foundation, which found that 87% of the members were male and only 14% of the members were female. However, I think there are some issues with this statistic.

Although I did not come across many avatars names that seemed feminine or avatars that listed their gender on their My Talk page, I still think the statistic is false. In class we studied that many people who join an SNS may or may not display their true offline identity. Therefore, there is a potential for numerous avatars on Wikipedia to choose to reveal themselves as males even though their offline identity is female.

Digital Divide Between Conventional Grading and Peer Grading

In “Crowdsourcing Authority in the Classroom,” Cathy Davidson tackles the negative comments she received about her new grading system. This is a perfect example of how technology is dividing our conventional grading system and our new peer grading system. Although many professors may think her grading style is truly unordinary, it has become the norm in all of my rhetoric classes.

This new form of grading came about because of technology. Technology has allowed professory to incorporate online wiki’s, blogs, documents (google docs), presentations (preznet), and others into the classroom. With new technology we also learn differently. For instance, we can submit our term papers through email or on a google doc. Thus, traditional methods are changing the way professors teach and the way we learn. In light of this, it is inevitable that Davidson is receiving such negative responses from traditional professors.

Davidson explained, “The point…is to show how, in Internet culture, we are often judging, responding, offering feedback, and working together through crowdsourcing but our educational system rarely if ever does anything to prepare students for offering or receiving feedback.” Here she highlights how our Internet culture is something to celebrate within the classroom because we can teach new methods of critiquing and offering constructive criticism.

Eventually, I think conventional professors are going to see how inefficient their grading system is once traditional forms of media go out of date.

Because I am a rhetoric major, I have been exposed to Davidson’s “crowdsource grading” methods. However, I am wondering if there are any other majors that would see this grading system work with their classes (engineers? Business? Etc.)? Do you think traditional methods of grading will cease as professors are faced with this digital divide in the classroom?

Bots v Humans on Wikipedia?

In researching the members of the hierarchal structure within Wikipedia, it seems that Wikipedia is now inviting robots to be contributors to the site. These robots, called bots, use automated or semi-automated software systems that carry out repetitive and mundane tasks in order to maintain 3,593,1070 articles of the English Wikipedia. So far there are 1,322 bots that each have accounts on Wikipedia and use avatar names such as “CrazyPhunkBot” and “GoblinBot6.” The Bot Approval Group (BAG) supervises and approves all bot-related activity from technical and quality control perspective.

Although bots are useful to Wikipedia because they can does numerous edits fastidiously and fix pesky grammar errors, there is a negative side that will raise some questions about their functionality. Now that bots are included in the Wikipedia community, I wonder if bots will be allowed to participate in the hierarchy? On average bots can make over a million edits per month, whereas the top human contributor (“Antandrus”) just reached about 100,000 edits over a period of seven years. Thus, if bots are ever allowed to be included into the social hierarchy within Wikipedia, all of the human Wikipedians would be doomed. Luckily, this has not happened (or has not happened yet).

Do you think that if bots have the power to rule our encyclopedic information, humans will no longer seem useful?

Good thing these bots have an emergency shut off button haha:

"How to Crowdsource Grading"

“How to Crowdsource Grading” explained how Cathy Davidson, a professor at Duke University, threw out the traditional method of grading. Instead, she has applied a new point system where her commentary and the students’ peer reviews serve as way to convey a student’s progress, goals, ambitions, and contributions to the class. Cathy Davidson like most my rhetoric professors have similarly incorporated this system into their classes. So what are the advantages or disadvantages?

Advantages:
From my experience I have found that students are extremely critical about the amount, level, value, worth, quality and success of my paper. Peer to peer evaluations can be a means of raising the bar by exposing students to the exceptionally good papers and the absolutely terrible papers. And as a result, you learn how to critically analyze other papers and see how you can improve your paper.

Disadvantages:
Peer to peer grading can be disadvantageous to large classes because a professor would have a hard time keeping track of the progress of students. Also, students might swindle the system which would go against the “good faith system.” For example, “halavais” commented that in her class there were two “gangs” that “reached an agreement that they would vote up each others’ work…and non-members work down…in order to increase their own grade in the class favorably. This would definitely defeat the purpose of constructive learning through peer review. Thus, a professor would be able to have more control over student interactions in a smaller class setting.

Now lets take it up a notch:
I propose that students only grade each paper through peer reviews of a rough draft and final draft. In addition, a student will present a case to the professor and the peer reviewer as to what grade they think they deserve and why they deserve that grade for each paper. A good case will be supported by examples of how their writing has improved, how their drafts have improved, etc. Then the professor will assess whether the student’s case is valid and deserving of the grade they think they should deserve.

Do you think this system would work? If you had a choice how would you change the traditional system of grading?

Cathy Davidson, Dr. Batt, Dr. Davis, and other professors have successfully proved that there are so many ways to incorporate peer review based classes into a grading system, and that there are so many other possibilities.

Wikipedia Comparison Report

“Wiki,” a Hawaiian word for quick, is coined as the term for expeditious websites that allow people to collaborate together with a click of a button. Wiki technology has led to the birth of a prominent information website called Wikipedia. In 2001 Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger launched Wikipedia—the largest and most popular web-based encyclopedia. According to Larry Sanger the purpose of Wikipedia is to “create a free encyclopedia based on the concept that it is editable by anyone and everyone, thus making it more accurate and reliable.” The medium used in Wikipedia is the editable articles. The Wikipedia community is open to everyone with access to the Internet, and anyone can collaborate with the click of an “edit” button. As it stands, Wikipedia boasts a community 13,989,210 Wikipedians (collarborators) that have collaborated on 17 million articles in over 270 languages. Like an encyclopedia, the articles range from a variety of topics, but unlike a written encyclopedia, articles can be changed or added as time progresses. The articles are not signed, and the contributors are unpaid volunteers.

Behind every article is a community of Wikipedians who vigorously pour their research and editing skills into every article. They share a common goal to make Wikipedia the most informative and accurate encyclopedia. Creating an account with Wikipedia is easy, and all that is needed to set-up an account is a username and password. Whether you claim your username with your professional title, real name, or remain pseudonymous, your edits and arguments will be judged on their merits. Once you create an account you will be welcomed to Wikipedia with a complex introduction page that features tutorials to inaugurate a new member into the Wikipedia community.

Wikipedia has many social features to participate and engage with members of the community. You can utilize meeting spaces in the discussions, edits, and My talk. These sections serve as asynchronous forums because members do not all have to be present at the same time. For example, members can read discussion comments about a particular topic that has been previously collaborated or edited by other participants and then add to them. The “discussion” and “edit” sections are clickable tabs found above each article, and act as meeting spaces for members to dispute the facts of an article or to incorporate additional information (images, links, sources, text, etc.). For example, if you want to collaborate on an article entitled, “The Great Barrier Reef,” you can either click “Discussion” or “Edit” tab located at the top of the article. “My Talk” pages also function as a meeting space because Wikipedians use “My Talks” as user profiles. There are also no flesh meets.

With the provided meeting spaces offered by Wikipedia, members have an important role and identity within this community. The community is based on a hierarchy that runs from most active to least active member. The community members who are the most active and trustworthy are given greater editorial control. In other words, they can be nominated as administrators, arbitration members, bureaucrats, arbitrator, or stewards. The following describes these positions in depth from the least authority to the greatest authority:
1. Editors: Many editors with accounts obtain access to certain tools that make editing easier and faster. Most of those tools, few learn about, but one common privilege granted to editors in good standing is "rollback", which is the ability to undo edits more easily.

2. Administrators ("admins" or "sysops") have been approved by the community, and have access to some significant administrative tools. They can delete articles, block accounts or IP addresses, and edit fully protected articles.

3. Bureaucrats are chosen in a process similar to that for selecting administrators. There are not very many bureaucrats. They have the technical ability to add or remove admin rights, approve or revoke "bot" privileges, and rename user accounts.

4. The Arbitration Committee is Wikipedia's supreme court. They deal with disputes that remain unresolved after other attempts at dispute resolution have failed. Members of this Committee are elected by the community and tend to be selected from among the pool of experienced admins. This committee can also boot members off of Wikipedia.

5. Stewards are the top echelon of technical permissions, other than the Wikimedia Board of Directors. Stewards can do a few technical things, and one almost never hears much about them since they normally only act when a local admin or bureaucrat is not available, and hence almost never on the English Wikipedia. There are very few stewards.

6. Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, has several special roles and privileges. In most instances however, he does not expect to be treated differently than any other editor or administrator.

Before requesting or accepting a nomination for these positions candidates have to be active, make regular Wikipedia contributions to articles for at least several months, follow the 5 pillars, and have gained the general trust of the community. Wikipedia contributors and leaders follow five basic principles to enforce meritocracy, communal standards of editorship and conduct. These five pillars operate as laws that help govern and democratize Wikipedia. These five pillars are:
1. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. This pillar defines what Wikipedia is and what it is not. According to the pillar, “it incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers.”

2. Wikipedia has a neutral point of view. This pillar describes the mandatory approach to neutral, unbiased and accurate articles.

3. Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit and distribute. This pillar prohibits personal views; defines Wikipedia’s role as an encyclopedia of existing recognized knowledge; and states that all content must have credible external sources.

4. Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil manner. This pillar compels Wikipedians to find consensus and avoid edit wars even when there is a disagreement.

5. Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Ironically, this pillar states, “Rules on Wikipedia are not carved in stone, and the spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule.”

While the first four pillars serve as rules that govern Wikipedia, the last pillar downplays the stringency of the laws as a whole. Therefore, the presence of the hierarchy is organized through an ad hoc meritocratic governance. Wikipedia is an “adhocracy” because the community functions as a self-correcting form of democracy (hence, “adhocracy”). Any knowledge that is posted can and most likely will be revised and corrected by readers. The continued ad hoc approach of Wikipedia contributes directly to the advent of its hierarchy; those users most active in editing content and engaging with the edits of others rise to greater visibility within the Wikipedia community. However, when they rise to greater visibility they have the potential to become either a leader or an outcast. Ultimately, then, Wikipedians can rise or descend in status depending on their content development process.

With the pillars in place, most Wikipedians use those regulations as guidelines to help them understand the definition of good content development. However, others will break those regulations established by the pillars, and in turn will have the potential to be booted off. First I will explain what makes a member an exemplar of Wikipedia. Good content development can be achieved through the various avenues within editing. In other words, Wikipedians can build up their repertoire by editing grammar, reverting vandalism, writing articles, and verifying sources. For instance, “Antandrus,” a long-term Wikipedian since 2004, built up his repertoire by contributing to content regarding early music in the Renaissance, early Baroque, and Medieval period. By April 2004, he became an administrator for his good content contributions. As an administrator he has continued to write about music, and also decided to edit articles for grammar. On his my talk page, he boasted that he rose up in status because he contributed to 623 articles, edited 90,000 times, and reached number 20 on “Wikipedians by Edit Count” in May 2007. Thus, “Antandrus” exhibited good content development because of the amount of music articles and edits he has contributed to. Another example is “Avraham,” who became an administrator in January 2006, and moved up in status to a steward in May 2006. “Avraham” is a Wikipedian who only takes part in editing articles by verifying sources and fixing grammar mistakes. When he described his philosophy on articles he stated, “I am…a very strong believer in having sources in articles, and quoting them. When an article is unsourced, by nature it is suspect…There are too many unsourced, or poorly sourced articles that people may take for real research on Wikipedia.” Like “Antandrus,” “Avraham” moved up in status by exhibiting good content contributions by editing articles and verifying the sources of articles. “Antandrus,” “Avraham,” and other devotees of Wikipedia are part of a huge self-organizing community that enforces a structure of meritocracy and communal standards of editorship and conduct. This community has found a common exigency to edit and expand existing articles, as well as add more articles to create the largest encyclopedia.

Among the devotees, there are some bad apples that vandalize Wikipedia either for propaganda or just to test the limits of the “edit” button. These members are called “sockpuppets” because they create “an online identity for purposes of deception within an online community.” As a result of their vandalism, the Arbitration Committee boots sockpuppets from Wikipedia. For example, “Reaper Eternal” discovered that “Yoyoboy305” vandalized the introduction section of the Church of Scientology article. “Yoyoboy305” falsely stated, “The first Scientology church was incorporated in December 1953 in The 3rd ring of hell” and continued to falsely state, “[Ron] Hubbard had been selling Scientology books and large piles of bull crap.” (See below)

“Yoyoboy305” disobeyed the pillars because he failed to include encyclopedic information and showed a biased point of view. Thus, “Reaper Eternal” seized the moment to criticize his unwelcomed vandalism on his “My Talk” page (I mentioned “my talks” are like user profiles) by stating:

In Wikipedian language, “Reaper Enternal” told him off when he suggested that “Yoyoboy305” should reread the section about “contributing constructively,” and to use “the sandbox” for edits (“the sandbox” is a place for Wikipedian noobs to learn how to use the “edit” function). “Yoyoboy305” has not had any activity since his last encounter with “Reaper Eternal,” most likely because he was not welcomed within Wikipedia. In another example, “Peter Karlsen” abusively used one or more accounts on Wikipedia, and as a result the Arbitration Committee blocked his account.

“Yoyoboy305,” “Peter Karlsen,” and other unwelcomed sockpuppets, were disruptive to Wikipedia for their personal attacks, edit wars, and soapboxing. These disturbances are in violation of the pillars and prove to be enough grounds to boot you from Wikipedia or exclude you from the community. Thus, sockpuppets are the bottom feeders of the hierarchy and are unwanted in the community.

Welcomed Wikipedians who have contributed enough to assume a role in leadership share similar educational backgrounds and gender. According to the Wikimedia Foundation, about 23% of leaders have completed a degree-level education, 26% are undergraduates and 45% have secondary education. Education plays an important role within Wikipedia because you have to at least know how to edit grammar, and when you contribute content within an article you have to at least be knowledgeable about the topic. In other words, it helps to have an educational background or expertise in an area when it comes to editing and/or contributing to content. After seeing numerous “My Talk” pages, I found that users love to boast about their educational background or area of expertise. For example, if you look at the figure below you will see how “Draceo” immediately discussed his academic credentials in his introduction.

“Nucleophilc” is yet another Wikipedian that used his “My Talk” page to boast that he had a Ph.D.

Although the hierarchy is not based on your level of education, it helps to have a high educational background because editing and contributing comes easier, and in turn the more contributions you make, the faster you will rise in status. Wikipedia’s online model similarly reflects our offline lives, where higher education relates to higher status in society.
The Wikimedia Foundation also found a huge gender gap between leaders. Of all the members 87% were male and only 13% were women. Although Wikipedia invites everyone to contribute, these statistics prove to be an uneven balance of the gender population. In light of this issue, I had to analyze what female Wikipedians were saying, and how accurate these statistics are. Two inactive female Wikipedians helped me understand the unfriendly aspects within Wikipedia. For example, “Pmlineditor” stated this on her My Talk:

“Pmlineditor” highlights that she felt alienated from the community because of the bureaucracy (hierarchal system), and how members monitor what other members do too often. Another inactive user named Sabby commented on NPR’s “Facing Serious Gender Gap, Wikipedia Vows To Add More Women Contributors.” She stated, “I used to contribute to Wikipedia, but finally grew tired of the “king of the mountain” attitude they have…such as the need for “reliable” sources when if they’d taken a moment to actually look at the reference they’d see they were perfectly reliable!” Thus, the bureaucracy and the “king of the mountain” attitude found within Wikipedia may discourage members from wanting to participate. Wikipedia is a competitive atmosphere because of the hierarchal structure. Many members want to reach the top of the echelon to be a Steward, and to rise in status you have to edit or contribute to articles. Ultimately, then, Wikipedia is a space that can be hostile to women. Adding to an entry requires a user not just to set herself up as an authority, but also to sign in and enter an online community that is deeply focused on trivia and information.

Although the hostile environment could be one reason for the gender gap, the accuracy of the statistics on the gender gap could also be another reason. In other words, it is quite possible that the percentage of female and male users is skewed because Wikipedians use avatars it is hard to determine who is truly male or female. Thus, the statistics do not take that into account, and there may not actually be a gender gap.

Without analyzing Wikipedia as whole, you would never guess the eccentricity of the Wikipedian community and structure. However, Wikipedians hold great importance in our society because they are on a grand mission to gather the sum of all human knowledge, and to distribute it for free to everyone on the planet in their own language. What it takes to accomplish that mission is an obsessive attention to detail and a tolerance for repetitive facts. They are quality snobs that are dedicated to the accuracy and quality of the encyclopedia. For this reason, the hierarchy and pillars fit well within this community. Without a hierarchy or pillars, Wikipedians might not be as organized or feel as driven to get involved on Wikipedia.

Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1uXpCFMmjHmEwtho7sb4TpHPahdabhuhm3GGkgBLQGXo