[consumer451]

What percentage of Wikipedia does that cover?

The entire world's knowledge has some controversial topics? Oh my! Burn it! Burn it all!!

The librarians of Alexandria would have killed for Wikipedia. It's easily our greatest digital achievement.

This is a hill on which I would happily fight to my metaphorical death, here and now. If you disagree, let's discuss please.

[internetter]

I don't get your point. You are allowed to edit articles on contentious topics. Its just more likely to be reverted. Because the topic is... contentious.

[consumer451]

My attempt at a point is that the controversial topics are a tiny percentage of the human knowledge stored on Wikipedia. If there were no controversies, then I would actually start to get worried. That would indicate that there was pure control of information on Wikipedia, like a theoretical CCPedia. [0]

Wikipedia is so open, that they even have their own "controversial" section! Is that not the coolest thing ever?

The chip on my shoulder is that there is a concerted effort to destroy and discredit Wikipedia.

The accomplishment of Wikipedia is not just beating the Library of Alexandria by many orders of magnitude, but doing so while keeping moderation logs in the open as well.

Ask @dang, or anyone that has ever had anything to do with forum moderation, if they would be cool with their moderation logs being completely open. Almost everyone with experience would say 100% no. They likely tried that and saw how much nutso drama it creates. Wikipedia actually does that, at the largest possible scale!

[0] Of course that exists, apparently it's called Baidu Baike

[fc417fc802]

> if they would be cool with their moderation logs being completely open

It takes a certain mentality. That's rare but I think it makes for much better communities on the whole.

However I think most participants, not just moderators, don't like the environment that sort of mentality results in. When anything and everything, including the moderation itself, is up for civilized debate that tends to foster an environment in which it's acceptable to question core parts of people's worldviews. There's little shared doctrine beyond "argue any position you'd like" which most people seem to find intensely uncomfortable.

[kacandor001]

> The accomplishment of Wikipedia is not just beating the Library of Alexandria by many orders of magnitude, but doing so while keeping moderation logs in the open as well.

There is at least one exception to that rule. Users who attract the ArbCom's attention may get a general block. If they ask what they're blocked for, the ArbCom rep will tell them to read their email. These moderation decisions are not public, not even in a form with PII redacted.

[amiga386]

There is also what's called "Oversight", which performs actions that are invisible to the public and administrators alike (though not invisible to some very privileged people)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Oversight

There are also "office actions", where essentially the Wikimedia Foundation and/or its legal counsel have been required to do something. In most cases, the office actions are visible and logged, unless they've been required to use Oversight as well. But the main thing is that the office actions will generally not be explained to anyone, as it usually stems from some legal threat to Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Office_actions

[consumer451]

I can't edit now, but when I wrote "CCPedia" I was first thinking about "muskpedia," but I didn't want to get political in a way that might offend other readers.

Currently ROFL, given grokpedia or whatever objectively dumb shit to which we are now exposed. I should not have bitten my tongue. Self-censorship is the worst kind.