(This post is a part of the series
How to fix Wikipedia.)
What's the problem?
From the
horse's mouth:
Edit warring occurs when individual editors or groups of editors repeatedly revert content edits to a page or subject area. Such hostile behavior is prohibited, and considered a breach of Wikiquette. Since it is an attempt to win a content dispute through brute force, edit warring undermines the consensus-building process that underlies the ideal wiki collaborative spirit.
Analysis
The necessary ingredients for a sustained edit war are:
- There are two or more persons or factions with strong yet conflicting beliefs about a particular topic.
- There's only one article per point of conflict to contain the belief.
- The persons or factions involved persist.
- Wikipedia's policies deliberately lack a terminal resolution mechanism for such conflicts.
Removing any of these four factors would make edit wars unsustainable. For example, removing The Other Factions through blocks and bans would guarantee a particular side a victory, and end the particular edit war. (This is a popular pastime for many Wikipedians, and a fundamental reason for most of the Wikipedia politicking.) Of course, this solution has the important downside of reducing the pool of Wikipedians.
Interesting previously used solutions
As I pointed out above, many people on Wikipedia like to use the solution of getting The Other Faction
blocked or banned.
A more "orderly" approach sometimes used on Wikipedia is
page protection. A well-known quip is that protection results in the Wrong Version of the page remaining unchanged and unchangeable for extended periods of time.
Some people have
forked Wikipedia in its entirety, trying to retain the mission, impose their additional guidelines or rules, and replace the content. Consider
Conservapedia and
Veropedia, for example.
Citizendium is another fork that involves thorough
redesign of the underlying sociopolitical system.
My solution
I believe the best way to permanently end edit wars, with the least actual downsides, is to discard the concept of article uniquity, and replace it with a fork-at-will scheme. This would mean:
- For every article there is, every user can create a new version he believes is improved over the previous version.
- Such a new version would not replace the previous version but appear parallel to it.
- Every reader would be able to see all the outstanding branch versions.
An obvious problem with implementing only this bare minimum is that there are a lot of articles, and many of them have a lot of versions -- and this can easily lead to information overload. This can be tackled in two ways:
- Machine-assisted comparison: the engine should provide a clear and readable overview on how do the versions differ.
- Personal approvals and network trust: users should be able to indicate which version (or which versions) they believe is best. Furthermore, the engine should enable automated processing of the social trust network by allowing users to delegate preference to other people whom they trust to make good decisions. This formal preference should give the engine data it could use to prioritise the branches by relevance, and according to the particular user's preferences.
This would result automatic formal factionalising on all controversial topics, allowing each side to work on a version of their preference on any article without disruption from other sides. Furthermore, because the trust network is formalised and accessible to the engine, the engine might be able to assess the sizes of various factions, the similarities and differences between various people, and even match people with similar understandings on What Should Be in the Wiki. Like Amazon's "Other people who bought these books also bought ..." feature, the wiki engine could offer users "Other people who approved these versions also trusted these people ..." feature.
Solved issues
This approach
obsoletes page protection and replaces it by withholding approval of new version. If such withholding is automatic unless explicit (although possibly indirect) trust has been invoked, it also obsoletes the weird social construct of
vandalism patrol as nobody would approve random vandalism (or if they did, it would be easy to distrust them). Of course, organised trolling groups such as
GNAA might be able to pull of more notable things, but again, it would be easy to keep them off your network of trust. In essence, every singular troll would become a faction of one, and organised trolls would just become their own factions.
This approach allows the users the benefits of their information being properly gatekept, but does it without forcing any gatekeeper and his biases on any user. Everybody who is unsatisfied with the articles there are could become a gatekeeper of their own, or nominate a gatekeeper for them.
One persistent kind of conflict in Wikipedia is the continuous battle between the so-called
'deletionists' and 'inclusionists'. One camp wants to enforce a high bar of entry for Wikipedia's articles; the other, in turn, wants to enforce a very low bar of entry. If we recognise "this article shouldn't appear as all" as one possible versions, allowing people to "prefer not having an article", we should be able to make both inclusionists and deletionists if not happy then at least content.
When Wikipedia started, it
imported the bulk of the
1911 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica. This has had a number of interesting consequences, and some problems. Similarly, when Citizendium started, it pondered for quite a while on whether to start from a
carte blanche or import the then-current state of Wikipedia. A wiki engine conducive to branching would solve this dilemma by offering the possibility of including any earlier encyclopedic work as one fork. Where, say, the 1911 Encyclopedia of Britannica is still adequate, people could check it over and approve its version; where it isn't -- such as nuclear physics --, new articles could be written, and the knowledgeable people's approval of these over the old encyclopædia.
Downsides
Fork-at-will will lead to compartmentalisation among people, not consensus. On its face value, it's true that such a proposal will enable high level of compartmentalisation or many parallel
Walled Gardens. However, the ability to fork is not the
cause of that.
We already live in a world of many, sometimes conflicting, beliefs. There have already been forks of Wikipedia. It appears it's unreasonable to expect for, say, a staunch Muslim and a devoted Catholic to find a consensus on the position of Jesus' status. At best, they may be able to agree to disagree, but this is not always the case -- especially on Wikipedia. Forking-at-will will facilitate such agreements to disagree, by allowing people of different beliefs to have their own -- necessarily different -- wiki in the same space.
Furthermore, when it
is possible for different factions to work out a consensus -- for example, by developing a joint version of an article that would discuss all involved sides' approaches --, I fully believe they'd do it even with fork-at-will. (For example, it's not inconceivable that a Catholic and a Presbyterian will find a consensus on Jesus' status, even if they differ widely on the relevance of Mary's sainthood.) Thus, I wouldn't say that fork-at-will leads to new compartmentalisation; instead, it will provide a new layer of flexibility.
Conspiracy theorists, pseudoscientists, and other fringers will be able to push their message. To an extent, this is true. However, to an extent, this is also an inevitable aspect of crowd-sourcing. In consolation, the non-conspiracy theorists will always be able to disapprove of conspiracy theories, and will not have to suffer from them. For pseudoscience, I anticipate a science team arising to check out on science articles, approve the good ones, disapprove the bad ones, and allow other people to trust them. Should -- hypothetically -- the team somehow be overtaken by, say, homœopaths or other woos, the science-minded people's trust in them would wane, and be carried over to a new and better science team.
Unsolved issues
How best represent trust? I believe this is the issue that will require most further thought (and careful experimentation) in this whole solution. In the beginning, I would give each user the buttons "I consider this version good" and "I consider this version bad" as well as "I expects this user's new edits will be good/bad" and "I trust this user to have good judgement on article goodness". First further developments would allow users to form groups, to trust groups, and to limit trust to particular topics ("I trust this user to have good judgement on article goodness for astronomy-related articles"). Further developments should depend on how well this works in practice.
What to offer to random passersby? One of the strong points of Wikipedia is that it makes a handy one-stop link for bloggers, making its articles very high among most search engine's results. This strength depends, to a considerable degree, on article uniquity, and discarding this uniquity may thus handicap the solution. However, considering that we don't have to discard the uniquity of
article topics but only of the
best versions, I suspect this problem can be overcome in a combination of two approaches. First, as I mentioned before, the software should be able to easily point out the differences between major versions. (I admit that 'major' is somewhat vague here, but 'approved by largest amount of users' should make a good first approximation until we figure out a better approach.) Second, once we have groups of users and group approvals, it'll be easy for the link author's to specify which group's version he wants to link to. Thus,
WingNutDaily could always link to the Conservapedia-like version of the article on, say,
evolution.
Social issues
If the basic mission of Wikipedia is to be followed, initial groups on natural sciences, arts, and history should be set up. Of course, the spirit of non-exclusivism will allow other groups of similar scope to also be formed. For example, there will almost certainly be a general pseudoscience and ufology group.
Coöperation between various factions will still be useful, but since non-exclusivism will avoid forcing it on people, the social system may have to provide stronger incentives towards coöperation.
If the system becomes popular, there will probably be quite a number of groups of different structure.
Depending on the way groups are formed, some may become suspectible to hostile takeovers. Experience will hopefully teach us how to deal with this danger.
