Still working to recover. Please don't edit quite yet.
Difference between revisions of "Wikipedia sysop power structure"
m (insult not needed) |
m (sysop power structure moved to Wikipedia sysop power structure) |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | |||
The sysop power structure of Wikipedia is to put it very simply, fascistic. Would be users are banned by ISP address and user name, (even if the computer they are using is a public one; i.e., in a library), and can be banned infintely. The admins are self-important and spiteful; they will edit out perfectly useful and accurate information because of 'guilt by association'; again a banned ISP number or name. Self-appointed Little Gods. Anarchopedia should contrast this with free and open access to all. [[Power to the People!]] | The sysop power structure of Wikipedia is to put it very simply, fascistic. Would be users are banned by ISP address and user name, (even if the computer they are using is a public one; i.e., in a library), and can be banned infintely. The admins are self-important and spiteful; they will edit out perfectly useful and accurate information because of 'guilt by association'; again a banned ISP number or name. Self-appointed Little Gods. Anarchopedia should contrast this with free and open access to all. [[Power to the People!]] | ||
| − | + | A theoretical example of such "guilt by association" is rampant accusation of what is known on Wikipedia as "sockpuppetry." This is the use of multiple accounts, or user names, by one individual. This is necessarily a concern because of increased risk of dishonest behavior (e.g., using different names to vote multiple times for one's opinion or to publicly agree with oneself). Such behavior should be discouraged. Wikipedia's sysops usually attempt to do so by banning and blocking suspected sockpuppets. The key word here is suspected. Very few users banned for being sockpuppets are ever proven to be so, and following their ban, many have all of their contributions reverted, even helpful ones. Essentially, a user can be banned by a sysop for continously agreeing with a position opposed by the sysop. The sysop could claim that the user is a sockpuppet of another user who disagrees with the sysop, using such specious justification as "similar writing style," ignoring the fact that Wikipedia, to a large degree, attempts to standardize style with endless guidelines and even articles giving stylistic advice. The sysop is thereby silencing one voice of dissent and calling into question the integrity of another. Since sysops admittedly "stick together," the banned editor will have no one to plead his or her case to, and a potentially legitimate point of view has thus been effectively eliminated, often with little or no proof of guilt. | |
[[Category:Wikipedia]] | [[Category:Wikipedia]] | ||
Latest revision as of 03:46, 27 July 2008
The sysop power structure of Wikipedia is to put it very simply, fascistic. Would be users are banned by ISP address and user name, (even if the computer they are using is a public one; i.e., in a library), and can be banned infintely. The admins are self-important and spiteful; they will edit out perfectly useful and accurate information because of 'guilt by association'; again a banned ISP number or name. Self-appointed Little Gods. Anarchopedia should contrast this with free and open access to all. Power to the People!
A theoretical example of such "guilt by association" is rampant accusation of what is known on Wikipedia as "sockpuppetry." This is the use of multiple accounts, or user names, by one individual. This is necessarily a concern because of increased risk of dishonest behavior (e.g., using different names to vote multiple times for one's opinion or to publicly agree with oneself). Such behavior should be discouraged. Wikipedia's sysops usually attempt to do so by banning and blocking suspected sockpuppets. The key word here is suspected. Very few users banned for being sockpuppets are ever proven to be so, and following their ban, many have all of their contributions reverted, even helpful ones. Essentially, a user can be banned by a sysop for continously agreeing with a position opposed by the sysop. The sysop could claim that the user is a sockpuppet of another user who disagrees with the sysop, using such specious justification as "similar writing style," ignoring the fact that Wikipedia, to a large degree, attempts to standardize style with endless guidelines and even articles giving stylistic advice. The sysop is thereby silencing one voice of dissent and calling into question the integrity of another. Since sysops admittedly "stick together," the banned editor will have no one to plead his or her case to, and a potentially legitimate point of view has thus been effectively eliminated, often with little or no proof of guilt.
