Marching Boots Of Mass Psychosis In The Virtual World

Quick Edit:  This has little to do with the content of the blog you are about to read, other than it involves Wikipedia, but it is a great read none the less.  Enjoy.

Groupthink, a term coined by social psychologist Irving Janis (1972), occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment” (p. 9).  Groups affected by groupthink ignore alternatives and tend to take irrational actions that dehumanize other groups.  A group is especially vulnerable to groupthink when its members are similar in background, when the group is insulated from outside opinions, and when there are no clear rules for decision making.

Wikipedia, The free online encyclopedia editable by anyone prides itself on being a meritocracy. The site successfully harnessed the wisdom of crowds to build what’s probably the largest, most quickly-constructed body of knowledge ever assembled in human history. Not bad for something that didn’t even exist when the decade began.For much of its content, the model seems to work pretty well. Easily-verifiable facts like names, places and dates tend to be rendered accurately. And when they’re not, they’re easy to fix. With millions of eyeballs scanning everything, errors can be caught quickly.

But when the topic is a subject of debate or controversy, the natural human tendency to want to convince others of one’s rightness can lead to some nasty behavior, as evidenced by your average Trivial Pursuit game. And when that happens in Wikiland, not only is the quality of the product degraded, so is the trust people place in the collaborative editing process.

A spat between contributors that recently became public demonstrated this weakness in the Wikipedia model, The Register reports (in a somewhat sensationalist tone):

Controversy has erupted among the encyclopedia’s core contributors, after a rogue editor revealed that the site’s top administrators are using a secret insider mailing list to crackdown on perceived threats to their power.Many suspected that such a list was in use, as the Wikipedia “ruling clique” grew increasingly concerned with banning editors for the most petty of reasons. But now that the list’s existence is confirmed, the rank and file are on the verge of revolt.

Revealed after an uber-admin called “Durova” used it in an attempt to enforce the quixotic ban of a longtime contributor, this secret mailing list seems to undermine the site’s famously egalitarian ethos. At the very least, the list allows the ruling clique to push its agenda without scrutiny from the community at large. But clearly, it has also been used to silence the voice of at least one person who was merely trying to improve the encyclopedia’s content.

“I’ve never seen the Wikipedia community as angry as they are with this one,” says Charles Ainsworth, a Japan-based editor who’s contributed more feature articles to the site than all but six other writers. “I think there was more hidden anger and frustration with the ‘ruling clique’ than I thought and Durova’s heavy-handed action and arrogant refusal to take sufficient accountability for it has released all of it into the open.”

Kelly Martin, a former member of Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee, leaves no doubt that this sort of surreptitious communication has gone on for ages. “This particular list is new, but the strategy is old,” Martin told us via phone, from outside Chicago. “It’s certainly not consistent with the public principles of the site. But in reality, it’s standard practice.”If you take Wikipedia as seriously as it takes itself, this is a huge problem. The site is ostensibly devoted to democratic consensus and the free exchange of ideas.

But whether or not you believe in the holy law of Web 2.0, Wikipedia is tearing at the seams. Many of its core contributors are extremely unhappy about Durova’s ill-advised ban and the exposure of the secret mailing list, and some feel that the site’s well-being is seriously threatened.

In a post to Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales says that this whole incident was blown out of proportion. “I advise the world to relax a notch or two. A bad block was made for 75 minutes,” he says. “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? A 75 minute block, even if made badly, is hardly worth all this drama. Let’s please love each other, love the project, and remember what we are here for.”

But he’s not admitting how deep this controversy goes. Wales and the Wikimedia Foundation came down hard on the editor who leaked Durova’s email. After it was posted to the public forum, the email was promptly “oversighted” – i.e. permanently removed. Then this rogue editor posted it to his personal talk page, and a Wikimedia Foundation member not only oversighted the email again, but temporarily banned the editor.

Then Jimbo swooped in with a personal rebuke. “You have caused too much harm to justify us putting up with this kind of behavior much longer,” he told the editor.

If there’s a flaw in the Wikipedia model, it isn’t that the site relies on the wisdom of crowds too much, it’s that the site’s highest-volume contributors and editors—the people who effectively run the place—could succumb to the gravitational pull of groupthink. The irony is that in using this mailing list, the Wikipedia inner circle is guilty of the same behavior they’re trying to fight. When a bunch of like-minded people get together, they’re sounding boards for one another, and they end up getting way off base because there’s not an opposing viewpoint around.

But one can say the exact same thing about this secret email list: a bunch of like-minded people are encouraging each other’s possibly wacked-out views and, in the end, making trouble on Wikipedia. The problem is that it’s difficult to engineer a way to allow for group-driven creation of content while dispersing certain responsibilities and decision-making tasks among the masses. It’s impossible to create a system that’s completely open to everyone without getting overrun by malicious vandals, so it’s hard to see how the site could avoid issuing bans or using some other form of group-imposed censorship.

To whatever extent is possible, Wikipedia would be advised to avoid a greater consolidation of power among it’s editors. Otherwise, it could lead to problems that could cause Wikipedia’s well-earned goodwill disappear just as quickly as it was earned.

WMDs: Weapons of Mass Distraction

“To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.”- George Orwell

Facebook is an insanely popular online social networking site that allows 20 million users to upload pictures of themselves and can include information about their favorite music, books, movies, their address, phone number, e-mail, clubs, jobs, educational history, hobbies, sexual orientation and even political affiliations.

Facebook attracts on average 80 percent of a given university’s undergraduate population. However, there are some questions raised regarding privacy concerns on the site, and when some ”soul searching” is done to find out who is really behind the site’s management, there are far more disturbing questions than enlightening answers.

The first venture capital money to come into Facebook, a cool half million clams worth, came from venture capitalist Peter Thiel, founder and former CEO of Paypal. A Stanford graduate and former columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Thiel is author of the book “The Diversity Myth,” an anti-multicultural argument which received praise from notable neo-conservatives such as William Kristol. Thiel is on the board of the uber-radical conservative group VanguardPAC.

Further funding came in the form of $12.7 million from venture capital firm Accel Partners. Accel’s manager James Breyer was former chair of the National Venture Capital Association (NVAC). Breyer served on NVAC’s board with Gilman Louie, CEO of In-Q-Tel, a venture capital firm established by the Central Intelligence Agency (that’s right, I said the See-Eye-Friggin’-A)in 1999. This firm works in various aspects of information technology and intelligence, including most notably “nurturing data mining technologies.”

Breyer has also served on the board of BBN Technologies, a research and development firm known for spearheading the ARPANET, or what we know today as the Internet. In October of 2004, Dr. Anita Jones climbed on board, becoming a part of a firm packed with leaders from other areas of Silicon Valley’s venture capital community, including none other than Gilman Louie.

But what is most startling is Dr. Jones’ experience prior to joining BBN. Jones herself served on the Board of Directors for In-Q-Tel and was previously the Director of Defense Research and Engineering for the US Department of Defense. Her responsibilities included serving as an advisor to the Secretary of Defense and overseeing the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). While the nearly $13 million that came from Accel to fund Facebook certainly looks suspicious (and ultimately disturbing after reviewing all of this information), the only problem on the surface seems to be the appearance of some incestuous relationships between the Pentagon, the CIA, and these venture capital firms.

But, as they say, looks can be deceiving. DARPA shot to national fame, or should I say infamy, in 2002 when John Markoff of the New York Times announced the existence of the “Information Awareness Office.” According to Wikipedia, “the IAO has the stated mission to gather as much information as possible about everyone, in a centralized location, for easy perusal by the United States government, including (though not limited to) Internet activity, credit card purchase histories, airline ticket purchases, car rentals, medical records, educational transcripts, driver’s licenses, utility bills, tax returns, and any other available data.”

Protests came from civil libertarians on both the right and the left who saw the IAO as a new Orwellian arm of the United States government. After Congress investigated DARPA’s project, funding was cut off and IAO was essentially dead in the water. The Information Awareness Office might have survived some of its original purposes in a mutated form, found in today’s Facebook. In fact, one of IAO’s original example technologies included “human network analysis and behavior model building engines,” a surprising echo of the social networking mapping that Facebook does using SVG visualizations. Add that to the information that Facebook collects and compare it to the startlingly similar goal of the IAO.

It appears at first glance that DoD, along with the CIA, has managed to circumvent its previous Congressionally-established limitations to find corporate sponsorship for its programs under the thin veil of a useful social network for unwitting college students.The “Privacy Policy” of Facebook includes a statement saying that they “may share your information with third parties, including responsible companies with which we have a relationship.”

It goes on to say that, “We may be required to disclose customer information pursuant to lawful requests, such as subpoenas or court orders, or in compliance with applicable laws. Additionally, we may share account or other information when we believe it is necessary to comply with law or to protect our interests or property. This may include sharing information with other companies, lawyers, agents or government agencies.”

Some of the aspects of the privacy policy are downright creepy and confusing. This particular gem is especially disturbing: “Facebook may also collect information about you from other sources, such as newspapers, blogs, instant messaging services, and other users of the Facebook service through the operation of the service (e.g., photo tags) in order to provide you with more useful information and a more personalized experience. By using Facebook, you are consenting to have your personal data transferred to, and processed in, the United States.”

While I realize that this conspiracy theory is venturing into the my brother’s-friend’s-sister’s-roommate’s-cousin Ray Ray territory, it can’t be denied that Facebook’s CIA links are somewhat disturbing. And It’s not just Facebook that threatens your privacy.

America Online recently stated that users of their instant messaging service AIM “waive any right to privacy,” meaning AOL reserves the right to republish any AIM conversation at any time. Furthermore, users of the Web site MySpace.com have reported that certain comments and profiles have recently been censored. Not-so coincidentally, MySpace was purchased by Rupert Murdoch, owner of a media empire that includes Fox News, around the same time period. 

Your privacy is worth fighting for, especially when the president claims the right to illegally wiretap U.S. citizens and demands that Google give up search records. In the Internet age we cannot afford to assume that our privacy is being respected. As Ben Franklin famously said, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

The Wild, Wild World Of “Dr. No”

Ladies & gents, this is how bad the corporate media really are. They cannot even report accurately on an event they produced themselves.

Ron Paul comes along and gives by most accounts of honest grassroots Americans the best performance in the first televised debate between GOP presidential contenders. Exclusively broadcast by MSNBC, Ron Paul led MSNBC’s post election poll from start to finish with nearly a double digit margin over his nearest challenger Mitt Romney.   

An even more resounding defeat of the rest of the pack occurred in an ABC News poll which at first had been posted on-line with only nine names on it — Ron Paul’s being the one missing. Peeved Paul supporters who complained in the poll’s comment section at first saw many of their posts ominously deleted — some no doubt for language, others for editorial discretion bordering on the word that shall not be uttered…unless by me.  C E N S O R S H I P people! After someone posted the cell phone number of a Senior VP at ABC News, the Paul name was added to the poll.

With the silent treatment of Ron Paul becoming deafening, ABC News has now taken the “nothing to see here, move along” tact. Here is how they summed it up in their whitewash of the days that followed:

So are the polls missing a Paul boomlet? Is the famously contrarian ob-gyn — a libertarian nicknamed “Dr. No” because of his propensity to vote against anything he believes contradicts the Constitution’s original intent — poised to surge into contention in the GOP field? Not likely. What’s more likely, based on Web traffic over the past week, is that Paul supporters have mastered the art of “viral marketing,” using Internet savvy and blog postings to create at least the perception of momentum for his long-shot presidential bid.

There is one glaring problem with this course of logic in the current ABC argument. There were almost 80,000 votes cast in the MSNBC poll just BEFORE the first televised debate. In that polling, the results came out just as the MSM media told us they should. McCain, Romney and Gulliani the leaders, Paul, Tancredo, Hunter and others just blips. 

What ABC is trying to say now, however, is that those who cast these 80,000 votes suddenly evaporated and were mysteriously replaced by those coaxed on by a handful of Paul supporters and Internet savvy bloggers. Me thinks thou dost protest too much.  Or picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue.  Take your pick.

The sad fact of the matter is that this is indicative of a concernted effort on the part of the mainstream media to trivialize the most honest and refreshing of all the presidential candidates.  Now, make no mistake, I am not planning on voting for Mr. Paul, so don’t dismiss this as another piece by a rabid Paul supporter.  I feel his strict interpretation of the Constitution is a tad bit unrealistic.

That being said, I do find it more than a little disconcerting that the man is being almost completely ignored by the media.  Other than the occassional piece on his online fundraising prowise he is for the most part considered an amusing sideshow to the main event that is Rudy G. vs. “the Mittster”.

Months later a quick “google” of the event STILL yields headlines like these:

“John McCain Wins First GOP Debate” (Fox News)

“Who Won the First GOP Presidential Debate? (Answer provided in article: “Mitt Romney” – National Review Online)

“Republican Presidential Debate Gives No Clue on GOP Leader in Race” (Axcess News)

Apparently the Axcess News editors don’t have a clue – unlike actual debate viewers.  But I digress.

On the October 21 edition of Fox News’ Hannity & Colmes, following the Republican presidential debate sponsored by Fox News, co-host Alan Colmes began an interview with Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul by asking: “You keep leading us in text voting. What do you think is going on there?” Colmes was referring to a Fox News feature allowing viewers to vote via text message for the candidate who they thought won the debate.

At the time of the interview, Paul was in first place with 34 percent. Later in the interview, co-host Sean Hannity asked Paul if he could support several of the other GOP candidates — including former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Sen. Fred Thompson (TN), or former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney — if he himself didn’t win the nomination. Paul replied: “Well, you know, I think they’re softening their tone. They’re not nearly as militant as they were a few months ago.” Paul then said, “[T]hey have to listen to these polls, don’t they?” to which Hannity replied: “Oh, this poll — you’ve got all your supporters calling.” Paul responded: “What, you mean your own poll isn’t any good?” Hannity then said: “No, it’s just a lot of fun.”

As if I really need to explain the obvious, the aftermath of the GOP debates has taught us that the path to the Oval office is off-limits to any candidate who is not bought and paid for (lock, stock & barrel) by special interests and the corporate media. Barely a handful of pre-approved lackeys are selected and lavished with an overwhelming amount of media coverage while anyone who stands for real issues or offers a viable alternative is shunned, or even worse, censored.

When Paul’s name comes up in a discussion of candidates, one hears words like “wacky” & “deranged” being kicked around as often as “flamboyant” and “eccentric”.  Someone unfamiliar with the man couldn’t help but walk away thinking he was a member of Nicholson’s supporting cast from One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest.

For those who have managed to delve a little deeper, Paul’s message of getting government out of our personal lives, destroying the IRS and returning to a founding father foreign policy of avoiding foreign entanglements is clearly evergreen and craved for by a huge chunk of informed, engaged and active American citizens.

I think Ron Paul actually knows something that the other candidates probably deep down in their little shriveled hearts know but are scared to let themselves feel, which is that, people will vote for you even if they don’t agree with you on everything. If they feel like you’re a person who has a conscience, who has some integrity, who’s got some intelligence, who calls it like you see it, who undoubtedly thinks for yourself.

Yet somehow he is still dismissed as a minor character of no importance.  The reality is he plays the role of Rosencrantz, perhaps to Dennis Kucinich’s Guildenstern (Ironically enough, you should read up on his position on much needed media reform), lending voters another set of eyes to view what now plagues Denmark.