Wiki Storms
An ongoing case at Wikipedia’s high court, ArbCom, was triggered by a recent article by Emma Paling at The Atlantic about Wikipedia’s Hostility To Women. That article mentions Eric Corbett, the immensely popular and influential Wikipedian who told another editor that “The easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one.”
Civility is a central tenet of Wikipedia and the entire reason ArbCom found it necessary to sanction every editor on Gamergate’s notorious hit list. In the aftermath of the “cunt” affair, the woman to whom Corbett addressed this charming and witty remark was banned from Wikipedia. Corbett was instructed not to discuss the topic. He violated that ban to rebuke The Atlantic, and was blocked for the violation. Another administrator promptly unblocked him, ArbCom stepped in to defrock the administrator, and we were off to the races.
You’d think this would be hilarity enough for any one case. Alas, no.
- ArbCom can’t even settle on a name for the case; it’s changed three times so far, and the current name – Arbitration Enforcement 2 -- doesn’t tell us much.
- One of only two women on the arbitration committee was originally named as a party to the case, in a cynical ploy to remove a feminist from the deliberations. Ostensibly, she was a party because she had been quoted in The Atlantic!
- Though the arbitrator was removed as a party to the case, she still had to recuse herself, so the ploy worked.
- ArbCom says it can only act on evidence provided by volunteers, but no one knows precisely what the case is supposed to be about, and so no one knows what evidence is pertinent. Yesterday, ArbCom erased reams of evidence that most observers consider very pertinent to the subject of Arbitration Enforcement, evidence that officials trying to enforce arbitration decisions are subjected to systematic harassment organized by anti-feminist zealots. But apparently that’s not the evidence ArbCom wants.
This strikes me as an irregular way to proceed. The arbitrators apparently know what this oft-renamed case concerns; we don’t. The arbitrators apparently know what evidence they want. We do not, and as ArbCom has said elsewhere that they rely entirely on volunteer-supplied evidence, the consequences may be undesirable. Others have speculated that the arbitrators already know what conclusion they expect to draw in this case; I myself doubt this, because that would be efficient if nothing else, and that seems inconsistent with ArbCom’s inclinations.
The underlying problem here is not an individual but an organized effort to subvert the project in support of right-wing opposition to “political correctness” and dangerous Liberals. The Wikipedia Community is unable to address the damage this organized effort does to the “five pillars” or principles that govern Wikipedia, especially neutrality and civility which the subversives despise.
The Community is also unable to accept the damage to those pillars. The result, plainly, has been that the pillars are much bruised while very great damage has been done to what Wikipedia calls “the Community” but which clearly has fallen into pieces.
Wikipedia is supposedly governed by consensus, but most Wikipedians, including the most influential and powerful officers, appear to have a very feeble notion of consensus. I fancy there are some really useful discussions of “consensus” in 18th and 19th century Quaker writing. Where should I look? John Woolman?