Sir, you paper, “Wikitruth through Wikiorder”, is no longer available to download on:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1354424

When ever I attempt to access this page, I get an error message “Service Unavailable” In fact, the entire site, http://papers.ssrn.com, I get a message, “Service Unavailable”

P.S. That was a typo for “Midnight Judgment” — no allusion to old Russian fighters was intended.

It’s not so much an instinct as a lamentable meme that got lodged in human culture about 4000 years ago.

It’s a lamentable meme because, while on the face of it, it looks like a good idea, it’s a mathematically flawed idea.

Deep thinkers have long sensed the flaw in the Crime and Punishment Regulatory Model, but only in the past century has the level of scholarship emerged from the domain of theology to the domain of mathematical systems theory to expose the flaw.

Alas, while it’s easy to appreciate that such technical analyses exist both in ancient theological texts and in modern systems theoretic papers, the analysis seems too daunting for the average layperson to digest.

Mignight Judgment

Based on several years observation, I think you will find that the above example is much more typical of how Wikipediot disputes get “resolved” — more by lynchings in the dead of night than anything resembling even so much as the pseudo-legalisms of that kangaroo court known as ArbCom.

All the best in your “further research” — it is indeed much needed.

I think you overemphasize the role of the Wikiquette noticeboard (given a section in the paper) and Editor review (mentioned in your flowchart). My impression was that many more conflicts are channeled through the Administrators’ noticeboard and its Incidents subpage on their way to ArbCom, possibly via an RfC. Did your analysis include counting which venues of dispute resolution were tried before arbitration was accepted? I would also be interested to see if the number and type of pre-ArbCom DR attempts is related to the ultimate remedies, which would naturally lead into studying how successful those venues are.

I looked at Wikipedia Review, and couldn’t find a way to easily post about the article. You are welcome to — we’re certainly in the market for more feedback.

(1) Unless your experimental “subjects” come from a wide variety of cultures and social strata, they don’t reflect much other than about the group from which they come. E.g., university students in developed countries — and probably anywhere — are not a sufficient basis from which to draw universal conclusions; nor are managers. Stephen Marglin mentions in The Dismal Science that economics students are particularly more self-interested than other experimental participants; if L&E is anywhere near to being as influential on current legal education as I infer from reading this blog, I don’t imagine law students would be a whole lot less tainted.

(2) An even bigger problem with experiments is that the categories themselves that are used for framing the hypotheses are very culturally determined. The categories of “instinct” and even “law” are examples. The catgories of neoclassical economics and its incrementally tweaked version, behavioral economics, are not at all universal. (Contrary to what many people in Anglo-Saxon countries think, behavioral econ is not universally regarded as revolutionary.) This is where becoming acquainted with more heterodox versions of economic, social and psychological thought is important. And one doesn’t need to go to West Africa or Inner Mongolia before finding heterodoxy: you can start with France — the economy of conventions, antiutilitarianism (MAUSS group), décroissantistes, anthropolgical work of Pierre Clastres, etc. etc. To say nothing of Ivan Illich.

Especially the part about “The data shows that Wiki-dispute resolution ignores the content of user disputes, instead focusing on user conduct”.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/mar/08/media.comment

In fact, see my _Guardian_ columns page, many of which discuss Wikipedia from an uncommon perspective.

Because Wikipedia is a cult that preys on a certain mindset, e.g. people who want to be considered professors. See the “Essjay” fraud for a blatant example:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/mar/08/media.comment

“Why does Wikipedia have a dispute resolution system that doesn’t resolve disputes?”

Because it makes the supposed resolvers feel very important.

The more promising avenue of research is, I believe, experimental work, both in developmental psychology and, especially, economic experiments. Experimental work is crucial to the effort to uncover universal patterns that cannot be explained as a product of culture. There is much exciting experimental work going on directly relevant to my claims, which the paper attempts to present fairly.

To anon: I didn’t know that there is a law student arbitrator, although I knew there were as many as two practicing lawyers. I sent the paper to the arbitration committee, and I hope to continue to receive feedback from them. (I’d also like to get feedback from current mediators, but that group seems quite diffuse.) What’s terrific about Wikipedians, apart from their generosity in sharing their insights, is that they are generally quite self-conscious in how they go about their work.

A.J.: Sorry you didn’t enjoy the game theory. That particular section responds, as you may know, to a particular argument in the literature about how to model social production. Not for everyone, but it makes a contribution, I believe.

Mike, you don’t have a single cite to a foreign-language source, much less to any primary sources concerning anthropological evidence. Moreover, the standard of evidence is the weak one encouraged by the student editors of law reviews, viz., if you can cite a source supporting your position, however specious that support may be, you have borne your burden of evidence. Your discussions of ancient law are based exclusively on written texts that have chanced to survive, which says little about how the law operated in life; cf. the gap between the Old Testament (and, to some extent, even the Talmud Bavli) and Jewish religious law in practice. To assert that less than four pages of text, citing only to law professors and one 45-year-old anthropological article, is sufficient for a review of pertinent anthropological evidence (@49), is not at all persuasive, to put it mildly. The unquestioned reification of the concept of “instinct” and ex-post evolutionary arguments are additional weaknesses. (You define instinct as “a behavior … produced by a complex interaction between genes and the environment” (@9n34) — one might as well talk about a blogging instinct or a television-watching instinct: what behavior, perhaps other than autonomic functions like breathing, is not so produced?)

I’m not by any means singling you out personally for the complaints in this comment; you have far too much company among your peers. Since this post began with Darwin, his example of allowing a long brewing time for his ideas might be among the better ones to emulate (notwithstanding its Anglishness). Another example is the footnotes to Marcel Mauss’s The Gift [Essai sur le don]. I suggest you retract the paper for now and reconsider it after spending a few decades deepening your scholarship, especially outside the confines of your current intellectual tradition, if your commitment to this topic comes from something more sincere than careerist opportunism. Perhaps that could include some primary anthropological research of your own.

What do you think? Am I allowed to mention that this paper is also now available for publication on your blog?