This is very similar to Ebay taking down counterfeit items on multiple occassions from the same sellers only to find the same items posted all over again. Whack a mole indeed…

The motivations of Ebay are slightly different in that they earn commisssions from the sale of these illegal items and apparently they feel that they are shielded by current internet caselaw, so they pretend to take action in order to make it appear that they are making a good faith effort to enforce their own user agreement.

I would be interested to hear about any libel actions against Wikipedia (past or present).I’m assuming that they aren’t too concerned about libel issues?

There are four kinds of professionals who might be in that market.

One is the Public Relations Specialist.

Another is the Propagandist.

A third is a new kind of technician who specializes in Search Engine Optimization (SEO). Their objective is to tweak content so as to make it rise in the Google PageRank calculations.

And a fourth is a new kind of technician who specializes in Content Management Systems (CMS).

Notably, there are two notorious former Wikipedia Admins who were engaged in SEO and CMS and who got into big trouble for their zeal in manipulating the system for unencyclopedic purposes.

What you say is true, so partial credit is due, but what I have in mind is the Cui Bono or the Market Research question: “If you could build it, who would beat a path to your door?”

That is, who would be in the market for a system in which one can control which misinformation persists?

(1.) Let’s first imagine an encyclopedia system that actually maximizes honest information and reduces misinformation to an infinitesimal rarity. Would people use such an encyclopedia? Absolutely. Would people become engaged with and feel passionately about the process of maintaining such an encyclopedia? Probably not. Therefore, I believe that the governing powers behind Wikipedia want a system where misinformation can persist, because it motivates and engages people, perpetually, to keep actively participating in the challenge presented them. Would you invest your time to play a game of Whack-A-Mole, if you knew that only the red mole pops up, and only every 6 seconds? Or would you rather play a traditional game of Whack-A-Mole, where there is randomness and disarray in the field of moles?

(2.) Engaged and passionate consumers are more easily monetized, even if it means luring them to conferences where they pay registration fees that support the keynote speaker fees, or even if it means occasionally diverting consumers from non-profit projects to highly similar for-profit projects, or even if it means arranging it so that the non-profit project uses tax-advantaged gifts to help pay rent at a highly similar for-profit project. Only engaged and passionate consumers would tolerate such manipulation.

(3.) Because it’s a role at which you excel, Mr. Awbrey.

Next Question 2. And Why?

Next Question 3. How come I always have to be the one who asks the next question?

In scientific review of academic work, the right tool is dialogue and peer review.

In particular, a powerful tool is the ability to ask good questions for which the answers are not yet well constructed, well articulated, or well understood.

Most of us are painfully aware that Wikipedia discussions do not support that essential tool of scholarly peer review. It is also lamentable that Wikipedia Review also disables that affordance, albeit to a lesser extent than Wikipedia or Wikiversity.

A lot of people (especially on Wikipedia) think the right tool is a convenient rule that can be enforced by means of a block or a ban to silence or marginalize rival contributors.

My question for such believers is this: How did you come to believe that exiling rival editors is a sensible practice?