The thing about the encyclopedia that “anyone can edit” is that anyone can edit what you edit, leading to all sorts of acrimony.

I was astonished at how many bureaucratic guidelines and policies are in place to regulate how people can edit and interact with one another — a consequence of no one having ownership over any one article.

It wasn’t the rules that wore me down, though, but the bickering. 

I really do like to argue, and for many years I’ve argued with people on message boards and Usenet, but I lose interest if the argument goes in circles. On a message board, a thread will just die off when people are sick of it. On Wikipedia, you have to defend your point of view if you want to change the article a certain way.  (Yes, you are perfectly free to edit the article however you want, but if the changes are contentious, you must defend them on the article’s discussion page or people will scold you or even block your account or IP number, if you are really stubborn about it). If you don’t keep up with the discussion in a seemingly endless effort to reach consensus, you can’t keep changing the article the way you think it should be.

It’s not so much that I have a better way.  I’m just saying it can be exhausting. Interestingly, Wikipedia’s parent foundation conducted a study of its contributors and found the project is having trouble retaining new contributors:

Based on this and other research (links below), here’s what we think is happening: As successful communities get really big, they naturally suffer growing pains. New people flood in, creating an Eternal September effect, in which the existing community struggles to integrate the newbies while at the same time striving to preserve the ability to do its work. It does that by developing self-repair and defense mechanisms – which in our case, turned out to be things like bot- and script-supported reverts, deletions, user warnings, and complex policies. All those mechanisms are obviously helpful – after all, they were developed for a reason, in response to real problems. And they do their job: they do successfully help experienced editors preserve and maintain quality. But they’ve also made it harder and harder for new people to join us, which in turn seems to have made experienced editors’ work harder as well. People tell me that editing back in 2001 or 2003 or 2005 was more rewarding —and more fun!— than it is today.

In my case I became frustrated with the inability to reach conclusions with people.  But it’s such a fascinating social experiment, and I hope they can come up with some ideas to make it less frustrating. I hope to get back to contributing, if I can pace myself and spread my energy over a range of articles, rather than become obsessed by one.  But right now I have almost a mental block about editing, while a couple years ago I was practically addicted. 

I can’t figure out how to tie this into my blog; I just liked the headline, seeing how it sums up the whole article so well. I can assure you my orgies are 100% nazi free!

But there is a tie in to sexual liberty that is not really explored in the article, which characterizes one side alleging and the other denying there was a nazi theme to the, er, activities. Supposing there was a nazi theme, but there is no evidence the man in question, Mr. Mosley, is actually a nazi or otherwise a racist outside the bedroom, does that make him wrong or unethical? Are we to assume what someone likes in the bedroom is a reflection of his or her overall character? I think that’s going a bit far. Suffice to say bedroom nazi reenactments are not my cup of tea, though if it’s done with a healthy sense of irony and amusement, I’m not sure how different it is from Springtime for Hitler. Can anyone really say, ““She needs more of ze punishment!” with a straight face?

Researchers in Germany, using advances in neuroscience, report in the current issue of the journal Cerebral Cortex that the folk belief is true: Running does elicit a flood of endorphins in the brain. The endorphins are associated with mood changes, and the more endorphins a runner’s body pumps out, the greater the effect.

Of course I, like many others, have always known this is true. It’s an interesting, informative, somewhat pleasing article — so why did I say I love the article? Because I just got home from running! Yay for happy coincidences.

But if running gets you high perhaps we need to ban it. How can we allow Big Sneaker to peddle their Nikes and Reeboks to our children?

I just want to say Hillary Clinton is great and deserves to win the presidency. She’s smart, tough, and experienced. I so want her to raise my taxes and regulate the hell out of me. Go Hillary!

1) A massive fire wipes out a city block in a local town, leaving dozens homeless.

2) The star quarterback of the New England Patriots might be slightly injured for the upcoming Super Bowl, seen on camera in a walking cast.

Guess which story leads the news?

Gotta love the media.

Technorati Tags: media

A paper presented by two researchers over the weekend to the annual meeting of the American Economic Association here challenges the conventional wisdom, concluding that violent films prevent violent crime by attracting would-be assailants and keeping them cloistered in darkened, alcohol-free environs.

“Economics is about choice,” Professor Dahl said. “What would these people have done if they had not chosen to go and see a movie? Whatever they would have done would have had a greater tendency to involve alcohol. If you can incapacitate a large group of potentially violent people, that’s a good thing.”

Professor DellaVigna added, “It’s not as if these people watching violent movies would otherwise be home reading a book.”

Well, in my case….

It’s an interesting argument and a reflection of the fact that sometimes reality can be counter-intuitive.

Technorati Tags: crime, economics

Technorati Tags: libertarianism

Technorati Tags: technology