DISQUS

Oryx Orange · 2 years ago

I completely agree with your post, and think the comparison between Wikipedia and Digg is perfectly appropriate. The nature of systems does indeed dictate that there will always be those with more influence than others, but Wikipedia's insistence on opening the process and continually resisting the temptation to taint the quality of its information by commercialization or elitism is far removed from what Digg is doing. The kids may be allowed to run the house a bit on both, but Jimmy is a far better parent, and his baby will grow up nicer.

davejenk1ns · 2 years ago

Brilliant insight. Marketers often target their campaigns at 'core innovators' or 'fashion forward' individuals. These are just other terms for social trend oligarchs. In fashion and trend purchases, however, the money flows from the oligarchs to the manufacturer/retailer. In information-based or news-centric systems, the money flows from the unwashed masses to the oligarchs, especially in an open publishing system such as digg or wikipedia.

Kyle · 2 years ago

I can't reconcile the suggestion that Wikipedia "excels" at "openness" with this secret mailing list. Secret mailing lists and secret evidence are hallmarks of a cabalistic structure, not an open one. Hence the furor.

ps. Stan, oligarchies and democracies are mutually exclusive by definition. You may be thinking of "democracy" as short for representative democracy, but that's common misnomer.

Kyle · 2 years ago

Stan, I would much rather you took more time when writing your items, or edited them when people point out obvious errors, than answer my comments. I read Mashable as a source of information, not so I can make a hobby of pissing you off.

If you understand that oligarchy and democracy are mutually exclusive, then the paragraph you wrote is simply nonsense.

Secrecy and elitism are part of the Wikipedia culture. It is institutional. The failure is in not making the power structure open and visible, which leads to abuses like the one described. However, I take your point about Wikipedia vs the differently flawed DIGG.

thepete · 2 years ago

Kyle: language is a set of symbols with definitions generally agreed upon. English, in particular, is a big mess and can often be misused even by supposed experts in it. The main concept of language, by my definition, is to express concepts to others. So, even though he didn't use precisely the right words you'd like doesn't mean his paragraph is gibberish. It means that you're a bigger stickler for English than he is. It's obvious what Stan means, so just move on.

The very fact that you're probably disagreeing with me right now is proof that I'm right.

All that aside: Stan, I disagree with your suggestion that "a higher degree of influence and power will always be retained by the selected few". This suggests a secret conspiracy (whether it's done through an email list or not) is always moving behind everything. That also suggests that people aren't capable of governing themselves (because we're lazy). I think Americans as we are now are lazy, but I think if we were actually trusted to run things, after a while, we'd work it out. Color me anarchistic, but I don't see the "select few" doing a very good job of running planet Earth. Maybe they should practice what they preach over at Wikipedia and we'd see how it works.

And yes, Kyle, I know all conspiracies, by definition, are "secret." I only added the word to make sure that was understood by anyone not familiar with the precise definition.

Kyle · 2 years ago

@ThePete: Whatever words you use in your comments are fine by me, since I don't expect the Mashable commentors to be professional writers. I hold the Mashable writers to a higher standard. And trust me, it's not very high.

If Stan wants to say that something is neither oligopoly nor democracy, he should do exactly that. What he shouldn't do is redefine well-understood words.

His comment amounts to: I know they are mutally exclusive, that's why I said they weren't, to make a point. Sorry, but that's nonsense.

Ian Kemmish · 2 years ago

For 10,000 years, the traditional response to issues like these has been competition. In other words, making sure that money _does_ "play a big part". People behave like this when they are confident they will experience no negative consequences as a result. If staff providing a competing service to the public are doing a better job, the public will go there, and the staff who are misbehaving will feel the effects of their behaviour in their pockets. They'll soon learn.

This is one (of many) reasons why economies based on subsidy (including activity funded entirely by advertising) all ultimately end up in the same state.

Arty · 1 year ago

"Your mother was a hamster, and your father smells of eldeberries!" -Anomonus french taunter.

En Francais: "Votre mére, elle est une hamster, et votre pére, son odeur est des baies de sureau."

Do I win the troll award?