Talk:Dominant group/Wikipedia

Purpose of this resource as currently stated:


 * This research effort intends to evaluate whether a dominant group, or groups, exist on Wikipedia, and if so what can be done to egalitarianize Wikipedia or Wikimedia.

Dominant groups are characteristic of human societies. If there were no dominant group on Wikipedia, it would be astonishing. The first goal of a wiki studies resource, as I see it, is to identify what is actually happening, and to avoid judgments of right and wrong, or, in this case, the more subtle judgment of assuming that the project should be "egalitarianized."

Indeed, the human project of identifying and neutralizing racism is damaged by the ready assumption that racism is "bad," and that racists are therefore bad people. This makes it far more difficult for people to discover and acknowledge their own racism, and anyone who thinks they are not racist at all may be in denial. Racism is simply a particular form of judgment or assessment of people according to marks, a shortcut that we evolved to handle emergencies. If some marks of a constellation of characteristics are seen, the observer, operating from memory, will assume the rest of the previously observed (or imagined) marks will also be present.

To move beyond these instinctive reactions, we need to recognize them, and understand how they are only knee-jerk responses. Otherwise, we will not even see them, often, and those least likely to see them are those who believe they hate racism.

In any case, congratulations on starting this project. The comments on sexism are cogent, of course, but the problems of sexism are a symptom of a much wider problem. Consider:


 * Assumption #3: Women will make Wikipedia a nicer place


 * "This assumption is also based on gender stereotypes: the idea of women as peaceful, nonconfrontational, and harmless civilizing forces. In order for the community to be more civilized, civil behavior should be expected of every member of that community, no matter the gender."[3]

One of the rather obvious or at least likely causes of gender imbalance on Wikipedia is the general ethos of the community, as to civility. Incivility is routine on many of the wikis. The general predelictions of men and women are different, but there are certainly women who move in traditionally male environments. Those who do so may not fit the stereotype of women as being more collaborative, and more likely to avoid conflict. Most women, encountering the Wikipedia environment in its darker moments, just go away, my sense. Only a few will tolerate it, and very few will act strongly to change it.

But collaborative men may also walk away, once they see how entrenched the culture is.

I am fascinated that those who heavily enforce blocks and bans think of the banned editors who make trouble, the block evaders, as somehow obsessed, crazy, as if a normal person, banned, would simply walk away. That may even be true. However, this is, again, related to male behavioral traits, some of which are probably genetically based, at least as to predelictions. It's quite obvious: on Wikipedia, some conflicts become clashes between males each one of which is disposed to fight, not to walk away. It is a stereotypical male trait to never admit error, at least among immature males, and never to allow oneself to be oppressed by another.

In the 20th century, consensus technology was developed, facilitation of consensus became a skill, there are trainings in it. While there were processes on Wikipedia designed to do this (such as mediation), priority was given to decision-making, which is very male. As a man, in relationship with women, it's been very obvious: my inclination is always to "fix the problem," and I will rush to do that. It can work very badly.

The dysfunction increases when the decision-makers focus on figuring out who was "wrong." It becomes entrenched when the goal is making decisions as quickly as possible, to "get rid of the problem."

One of the signs of this is standard wiki process! I.e., a proposal is made. Voting begins immediately. Instead of a period of gathering evidence, then a discussion period, after which consensus (or at least majority approval) is found on the question, after which there is voting, voting begins immediately. No sane deliberative democracy would make decisions that way. But ... Wikipedia is not a democracy. What is it? It's obvious: it is what has been called an adhocracy, which is a polite term for mob rule. Jokes about it are common. ("Get out the tar and pitchforks!")

There are cabals, i.e., groups which exercise power, and, again, joking about it is common. (A paranoid mind might think that the joking about cabals, equating cabals with conspiracies, is designed to divert attention from the real phenomenon: factional editing and administration, and not only a lack of transparency. It's very obvious: decisions are sometimes made off-wiki, either through email or IRC, rather than through what guidelines would seem to require: open process, openly discussed. So, then, a level of administrative coherence is created as an impression of consensus, when the consensus is actually factional in nature.)

What can be done? My long-term plan has been to develop civil and deep deliberative process on Wikiversity. It is easiest here, our traditions allow deep study. If we can do it here, it becomes possible that success can spread. Experiments on Wikiversity have been tolerated, at least, whereas on Wikipedia they were crushed. Major problems only arose on Wikiversity when this wiki was used as a platform from which to attack users on other wikis. Hence Wiki studies/Ethics, which is open for development. --Abd (discuss • contribs) 16:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Minor correction of detail
I don't really understand the theoretical assumptions behind the page (especially the analogies to insect behaviour), and don't know whether the page is still under construction. I thought I should correct one minor point. User:Dsp13 is said to be 'probably female'. I'm amiably flattered, but in fact I've always been male. Dsp13 (discuss • contribs) 19:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the correction! --Marshallsumter (discuss • contribs) 22:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)