The aim of this blog entry is to look at a controversial Wikipedia article and analyze the talk page for the four dimensions of online communities.  My initial intent was to discuss the ever-controversial Scientology page.  Upon reflection, however, I’ve changed my mind.  There is a fairly well-known actor in the security community who goes by the handle of th3 j3st3r (The Jester).  To date, his “real” identity is unknown.

What makes him both well-known and controversial is that he’s a gray-hat hacker who attacks sites he deems bad.  For instance, he regularly attacks sites he claims are jihadist fronts, effectively making the sites unreachable.  This behavior is viewed by many as extremely controversial and, as a result, there are a number of people that want to expose him.  Interestingly, some of this controversy appears on the talk page for his Wikipedia entry.  The following is an analysis of the talk page as well as how this relates to how Wikipedia works.

As an aside, I’m realizing that my own opinions seem to be contributing, somewhat, to my analysis.  So, for the record, I’m not entirely sure where I stand with respect to the Jester.  On the one hand, I find his ability to remain anonymous intriguing.  On the other, his activities are somewhat questionable.  It is difficult, however, to argue that the sites he alleges to have disabled should remain on the Internet.

Ideology: What underlying assumptions and values drive the discussion?

The commentary on the talk page appears to come from two different viewpoints.  The commenter is either a critic of the Jester or someone who appears to be trying to keep a neutral point of view.  The critics all seem to believe that the Jester is a fraud of one sort or another.  Those trying to remain neutral seem to do a good job of remaining objective by providing facts, requesting additional information, or directing others to Wikipedia guidelines.

Overall, it seems that the discussion is driven on one side by critics who question whether the Jester should have a Wikipedia entry at all, and on the other side by editors who are striving to write a neutral article.

Face Systems: What language points to how people get along? “phatic discourse” (small talk); language that invokes or establishes relationships / power differentials; jokes; play

The use of negative wording such as “self-promoting moron” and “twitiot” seem to be used by commenters that are against having this article appear in Wikipedia.  Very few arguments made for removing this article seem to be made without a negative tone.

Many of the responses to arguments for removal use very strong, solid language.  Instead of coming across as defensive in nature, the responses state facts up front along with a follow up statement identifying that the information provided is clear and acceptable.  When personal attacks are made, the response language is strong, to the point, and identifies relevant Wikipedia documentation identifying unacceptable behavior.

There are a few conversations that seem to concentrate on ensuring that proper language and facts are used within the article.  One of these regards what language to use to identify the unknown gender of the Jester.  This brief conversation is, with one notable exception, cordial and to the point.  Without analyzing the article itself, however, there is no clear conclusion to the conversation.

The noted exception in the gender conversation is a brief anonymous statement.  The anonymity itself is interesting as the comment appears to be inflammatory.  The date stamp on the comment indicates that it actually occurs after the main conversation has already been completed, despite the comment appearing in the middle.  In the end, the comment doesn’t lend much to the overall conversation.

Forms of Discourse: What is the structure of communication? emoticons/standard grammar/linking/citation

Many of the comments calling for removal of the article are anonymous.  I find this quite relevant as it seems to indicate a user who is not committed to the cause they promote.  Additionally, these removal requests rarely include any documentation supporting their position.

Most commentary responding to the removal requests contain links and citations supporting their positions.  The language used is strict, but respectful.

There are a few instances of emoticon usage.  Each of these instances appears to be an attempt at levity, each punctuating a statement that appears to be playful.

Socialization: Any language, phrases, or moments where you can see people attempting to teach each other something?

I’m not sure if this qualifies, but at the beginning of the talk page is discourse from one particular commenter, Paul the Less, who seems dead-set against having the Jester article included in Wikipedia.  Over a period of approximately two weeks, he comments that the Jester is not notable and that the article should be removed.  His comments use negative language and seem to attack the Jester while requesting removal of the article.  Other commenters provide links to information they believe proves that the Jester is noteworthy and reject the proposal for deletion.

At one point, Paul the Less posts a comment that implies that the Jester is one of the other commenters.  One of the responses notes that “outing” a user is against Wikipedia policy.  Paul the Less follows up with an apology as well as a reversal of his request for deletion, citing a link to an article he believes marks the Jester as notable.

Finally, Paul the Less goes on to make additional comments about other topics to be included in the article along with a request for clarification of Wikipedia guidelines.

Overall analysis of this talk page leads me to conclude that there are, at times, very complex interactions between users of Wikipedia.  Some users are quite passionate about a subject that may interest or enrage them and post comments that clearly show their feelings.  Others strive to remain neutral, both when editing articles and when responding to commentary on the talk page.  While this particular article does have a number of passionate contributors, it is clearly not as contested as some other articles appear to be.  Wikipedia policy allows for highly controversial articles to be locked for editing when necessary, though one can argue that this policy may result in other types of bias.

Article curating, overall, seems to be a collaborative effort.  In some cases, metered discourse brings about useful conclusions regarding sections of an article.  In others, passionate disagreement can result in additional information being added to an article to present multiple angles of a controversial topic.  And in some instances, rational discourse deteriorates into the irrational.  It appears, however, that many editors strive to avoid the irrational and steer conversations, instead, to neutral ground.