Confirmation Bias in Action
Ever since I decided, some time ago, that Wikipedia had serious problems in accountability and transparency in their meta-editing process, I’ve derived a certain sour satisfaction from articles like this:
Secret mailing list rocks Wikipedia | The Register
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.
But this is a clear case of confirmation bias. I’m looking for information that confirms my low opinion of Wikipedia admins, while mostly ignoring the plentiful articles on how Wikipedia is the greatest thing since sliced bread and will change the world (in fact, at the moment every wikipedia page has a banner add that reads “You can help Wikipedia change the world!”).