SaintElsewhere Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 http://phys.org/news/2013-02-conflicts-wikipedia-statistical-physicists.html#jCp
Magnus Posted February 22, 2013 Posted February 22, 2013 These debates are so interesting to me. I once found myself in an unexpected Wikipedia editing war, about an unlikely topic --- the difference between classical (non-electric) fencing and modern Olympic fencing (which is scored electronically). There's a surprising amount of animosity between the two camps of proponents. The Classical fencing method uses training weapons that have no electricity. Hits are judged visually, sometimes with the aid of chalk applied to the tip of the blade, or with a special tip that has a small barb on it (which catches the fabric of your opponent's uniform). But the rules of fencing call for scoring a touch without yourself being touched. The problem is that touches (and nearly-simultaneous double touches) can be extremely fast, and the competitor being touched (or missed) sometimes has a different opinion than the referee standing on the sidelines. Disputes ensue. In the mid-20th century, someone invented a foil with a plunger tip, which is connected by wire to an electric box that lights up and beeps when you land a touch. The box can also be designed to lock out the opponent's signal, so that the box will register touches as occurring simultaneously (and thus not counting) if they occur within a certain interval of each other (an interval that can be electronically measured in milliseconds, which is much faster than the unaided eye can discern). Classical fencers argue that this tiny change in the scoring system fundamentally changed fencing. They say that electronic scoring technology favors attacking, since one does not need to fear being hit nearly as much. In comparison, in a Classical bout, one needed to score a touch so decisively, without being touched at all, that the referee could clearly see it. The emphasis was on NOT being touched -- a more defensive strategy. This issue has provoked an intense, venomous debate. The proponents of modern electric fencing resent being characterized as inauthentic. Their electrified system is far more popular today. They say it is more fair. They say the modern style is more athletic and more interesting. They also dispute the validity of the Classicist version of fencing history regarding the emphasis on defense. In any event, there are a couple of things that interest me about my Wikipedia editing conflict. First, I think it clearly illuminates how even a tiny change in the design of a system can have HUGE consequences. Changes in the rules, or in technology, will fundamentally alter the system. If a small change can do that in the context of something as esoteric as fencing, just imagine the effect that a change in, say, the rules of divorce can have on family life. Or how a small change in the State's banking laws will affect the entire economy. I am also struck by how vehemently people will battle for control of a narrative. It's just words on a page, but people will absolutely fight to the death over them. It's beyond ideology. It's a matter of theology. If people will do this for a Wikipedia entry about something as minor as fencing, then I imagine that the contest for control of the page on Anarchism was extremely heated.
SaintElsewhere Posted February 22, 2013 Author Posted February 22, 2013 Thank you for your comment I found it extremely interesting to read. It's poetic that a dispute over the term Anarchy demonstrates how Anarchy functions "in the wild." The article claims that "even strongly held beliefs converge strongly over time even without dissentors directly interacting" simply as a result of the medium. This is Chaos Theory at work, that we can see purposeful behavior (the invisible hand) from a distance resulting from agents working independantly. Just as birds following simple local rules become a flock banking and turning as one. Eventually even strongly opposing views converge over time, even without direct interaction between dissenting contributors Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-02-conflicts-wikipedia-statistical-physicists.html#jCp Eventually even strongly opposing views converge over time, even without direct interaction between dissenting contributors. The shared medium takes care of this. Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-02-conflicts-wikipedia-statistical-physicists.html#jCp Eventually even strongly opposing views converge over time, even without direct interaction between dissenting contributors. The shared medium takes care of this. Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-02-conflicts-wikipedia-statistical-physicists.html#jCp Eventually even strongly opposing views converge over time, even without direct interaction between dissenting contributors. The shared medium takes care of this. Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-02-conflicts-wikipedia-statistical-physicists.html#jCp Eventually even strongly opposing views converge over time, even without direct interaction between dissenting contributors. The shared medium takes care of this Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-02-conflicts-wikipedia-statistical-physicists.html#jCp Eventually even strongly opposing views converge over time, even without direct interaction between dissenting contributors. The shared medium takes care of this Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-02-conflicts-wikipedia-statistical-physicists.html#jCp
Recommended Posts