Controversy over secret Wikipedia society

 

Gallery

Posted on 4 Dec 2007 at 12:17

A row has erupted amongst Wikipedia users over allegations that a ruling elite controls much of the supposedly democratic project.

During a debate which began over the banning of a seemingly productive editor, evidence of a private mailing list was released revealing a small clique of administrators who discuss potential bans and article edits in private. A far cry from the democratic ideal the site was founded under.

The row erupted after one user, simply called "!!" was banned by an admin called Durova, to the ire of some members of the community.

"I happen to know who this "disruptive" editor is, and I'll tell you now he's done absolutely nothing wrong at all," argued Majorly. The situation was quickly resolved and the user's account reinstated, but not before evidence of secret discussions were leaked.

Super Users

Wikipedia founder, Jimmy Wales, has previously talked about problems that the site has with its core of super-users, who represent only 2% of users, but make 75% of edits.

Because administrators are chosen by "bureaucrats", a small group of high-level Wikipedians, the site is far from a democracy, many claim. Having a group of administrators secretly discussing who should be banned and what articles should be edited is a form of censorship that many users find objectionable.

Wales commented on the block, saying that it had been reversed and suggesting that there were lessons to be learned from the situation.

"It was reversed and an apology given. There are things to be studied here about what went wrong and what could be done in the future, but wow, could we please do so with a lot less drama?"

Author: Matthew Sparkes