Criticism of crowdsourcing

Consider that Wikipedia Review is now, according to a number of participants there, suffering from various problems of anonymous management and community composition (an influx of Wikipedia apologists). Now may be an opportune time to establish a new forum for discussion of similar matters as posed by Wikipedia Review, but with various improvements.

Let this page serve as a discussion place for this new possibility.

Founding principles

1. The ownership and management of the new forum should all be self-identifying persons with legitimate biographies that map to real-world authenticity.
2. The targeted audience of the new forum would be journalists who write in the area of technology and media, academics who research these subjects and the general public. Many of those in the targeted audience would probably not have an understanding of the inner working of Wikipedia policy and of the "jargon" generally used there.
3. Topical discussions need not be limited to Wikipedia. We can discuss all matter of social, political, commercial, and academic consequences of any of the following:
   • Crowdsourcing
   • Free licenses, the "Free culture movement" and copyright issues
   • Wikis
   • Section 230 considerations
   • Anonymity and Privacy on the Internet
4. Participants in the discussion may elect to do so from behind a pseudonymous cloak, but they will be advised that their opinions and status as participants shall carry less "cachet" (clout, gravitas, etc.) than those who self-identify and participate transparently.
5. Emphasis would be on neutral, objective criticism of the issues described above using ethical journalistic practice in order to describe documented situations involving these issues, with as little discussion of "WikiDrama" and interpersonal issues as possible. However, it might be necessary to discuss individual editors of Wikipedia in specific situations, such as Conflict of interest issues.

Format

Which format would be most suitable for this new forum? Would it be possible to have both formats? If so, what would be more appropriate to have as the site's major format?

Message board

Pros

Fluid discussions between members

More directly participative than a wiki, as each party may express their side without having to include the concepts already presented.

Cons

Derailment of threads

Appears amateur

More likely to cause conflict, especially between "problem" users

Wiki

Pros

Output is inherently more "polished" and "reasoned" than a message board

The content is more immediately usable for journalists, academics and media professionals.

Cons

Discussion between parties gets lost in "consensus" of page

Using the same format as that of the subject that one is trying to describe may not be a valid way of producing analysis, especially if the same core principles (ie NPOV, "consensus") are used. It's perhaps important to "think outside the of box".

A combination of Message Board/Wiki

Pros

Is already the "setup" at the WR, with the message board and the "blog". That part of the WR model seems to work quite well.

If access to the "wiki" is reserved for named individuals, then the pseudonyms can still provide information or evidence on the message board, which can later be sourced and investigated. This allows separation of "theories" and "hypothesis'" from actual sourced and investigated pieces of information. This might also be useful from a legal standpoint if a disclaimer is given on the message board concerning the validity of statements made there, as opposed to the wiki.

Cons

Some information may get lost in the process of sifting through the posts made to the message board.

Using a separate system with the message board being the only area accessible to pseudonymous contributors might make the area attractive to vandals and other attention-seeking individuals.

Name ideas

What might we call this site?

Criticism of Crowdsourcing

Wrongs of the Internet

Rethinking Free Culture

Wikipedia Analysis (attn: the term "Wikipedia" is copyrighted. Can we use this name? ) or WikiAnalysis

WikiReader (Americans will remember the "Weekly Reader" from Grade school...although this might not work for an international audience)

One of the reasons that "The Wikipedia Review" has been so successful as a concept is that the name is precise, yet neutral. A successful name will most likely have a neutral, objective(perhaps scientific), element which will not necessarily be seen as being negative towards the subject. It is perhaps more effective to try to remain objective in our criticism, as to let the objective evidence speak for itself.

Reserved domain names

• WikipediaMustDie.com
• GregoryKohs.com
• MimboJimbo.com
• MyWikiBiz.com