Hacker News Reader

Comment by Shinkei | Hacker News Reader

I apologize if Mr. Bernstein is reading this, but does anyone else feel like this post as well as many of the others he linked in his article are meandering, circumferential... maybe even raving? I really cannot follow his reasoning or discussion at all. I was genuinely interested though because I have heard all about this 'infamous' topic but have had trouble finding objective sources (if they exist?).

The end of the post should say TL,DR:

I think Wikipedia admins are sexist and it is hurting Wikipedia.

View on HN

I agree, although my biggest criticism of the trio of Bernstein's articles is that they are all so vague; I have many questions that I'd like to see answered, and neither this series of posts nor the linked news posts by The Guardian, Wil Wheaton et al. helped.

1. I don't know who the "gamergate supporters" are, who the "opponents" are (and thus I can't read the Arbcom's decision at all).

2. I don't see any representative edit from either party and I don't know what the war is about specifically.

3. I didn't see links to the arbitration committee proceedings; is it [1]? If so, it says that the case is currently open but the Open Tasks page at [2] says decision was due on the 21st. That is very confusing as well.

4. The decision page and the talk page of gamergate [3] are indeed too long and too unformatted for me to read.

5. If it is true what Bernstein says, that the feminists and anti-Gamergate editors have been topic-banned, does it reflect already on the Wikipedia page itself? [4] I have skimmed it but it seems fairly okay to me (and I consider myself a feminist); am I missing something? Or are the pro-Gamergate edits yet to happen, after the Arbcom's decision is finalized?

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:ArbComOpenTasks

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gamergate_controversy

[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy

Re [1], you will want the current revision of the proposed decision: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests... (which is the same confusion i tripped across, because wikipedia's arbitration structure is as byzantine and confusing as the rest of their governance structure).

TL:DR The Wikipedia processes lead to a lot of discussion. That discussion takes a long time. This can be gamed by some people to make the project include information that is used to harrass others. This does not require sexist admins, although they do exist. It just requires a few accounts who know how Wikipedia works so that their posts are not instantly reverted and ignored.

Trolling is a metaphor taken from fishing. Wikipedia is a big barrel full of hungry fish.

I agree about the rambling post. Surely it would be better to recruit people to guard against gaming of wikipedia; people who encorage an anti-harassment culture and who encorage a culture of non-engagement with toxic trolls.

The thing is, events like this have a chilling effect on anyone who could possibly attempt to do that. As he highlights, Wikipedia is not a democracy, it's a bureaucracy, and it responds to attempts to change its culture exactly the way bureaucracies do. It's this effect in fact that's allowed hate groups like GG (and assorted other kooks and psychos over the years) to get away with stuff like this. Any organized effort perceived as 'external' is often met with surprising backlash from the established editors, who will very often ignore any concerns at best (preferring to argue bureaucratic protocol), or worst, react as they have here, banning the wrong people merely because they're perceived as being insufficiently 'neutral' to be allowed comment.

Even if it was a democracy, the problems with it wouldn't automatically be fixed.

People talk about democracy as if it was some magic pixie dust that makes everything better. But democracies have their own problems, and in order for them to work at their best they have to have the participation of an educated, well-informed, engaged elecotrate, among a host of other things. Needless to say, Wikipedia does not have that. And even if it did, its problems still wouldn't automatically be solved because even working democracies can make mistakes.

I'm not saying I have the answer or know of a perfect system of government (for Wikipedia or anything else), but democracy isn't automatically the answer.

"Trolling is a metaphor taken from fishing."

It really isn't. Perhaps you're confusing it with trawling?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolling_%28fishing%29

"Trawling" is using nets. "Trolling" is using lines.

I read Bernstein's original post a couple days ago, and followed up by reading the wikipedia arbitration.

The real crux of the problem is that there's a mismatch between the broad scope of what Wikipedia's rules try to prevent against (biased editing) vs what gamergate is using Wikipedia for (a tool of harassment).

So the question is whether Wikipedia's rules are sufficient to prevent fiddling with the site and its purpose in order to harass people and are simply being misapplied, or whether Wikipedia is just structurally unable to prevent obvious coordinated campaigns of harassment.

non-engagement with toxic trolls

What does this mean in detail? Reverting their changes while refusing to discuss it?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com