User:Donald Trung/Memetic survival

This page 📃 is an essay relating to the interactions between users 👥 on Wikimedia Commons and how users 👥 interact with “the outside world 🗺” through the propagation of their content.

Let me start this essay with the statement that I have never really been a fan of Richard Dawkins’ hypothesis of memes, however neutrally reviewing it has allowed me to view various systems and/or ideas 💡 in the context of “memes” and “memetics” and try to apply the hypothesis to the function of interpersonal relationships and hierarchal systems such as Wikimedia Commons and other Wikimedia projects. The concept of “memes” here can be expressed in various contexts and their application affects more than just the other editors 👥 of Wikimedia.

In this context a person is not just “the sum of their genes” but also “the sum of their memes”, certain memes stick out and editors are identified through them (such as being “the George Reeves person” because you mostly edit articles related to w:en:George Reeves), while an identical twin could be banned for in-person events even partially funded by the Wikimedia Foundation but as their genetic make-up may be identical their memetic make-up isn't, identical twins of banned users could still edit due to their different memes. Memes dictate all forms of “abstract expression” including editing mannerisms and thematics. Memes can also be largely geographic (although less thanks to the internet, but more on that later), for this reason having similar mannerisms, ideas, styles of engagement, Etc. Can lead to mistaken identity (as is the case of User:Solomon203 being mistaken for the Nipponese Dog Calvero). Seeing every situation that plays out both on- and off-wiki in the context of memes can help clarify many interactions that might seem odd to any outside party.

Memes, what are they? What do they do? And why do they matter?

The basic concept of a meme is quite interesting, they are like genes but based on ideas, often more abstract than things expressed in genes, the memetic make-up of a person can change and is probably constantly changing while the genetic make-up of a person doesn't change much over a lifetime. Memes are similar to genes as in that they seek their own survival, like there are “selfish genes” there are “selfish memes” that are destructive to other memes, this is important to contextualise certain aspects of the Wikimedia “community” such as Inclusionism Vs. Deletionism, or the existence of Exclusionism. Memes that have to compete with more memes are less likely to reproduce and this can explain the Deletionist “quality control” that exists in many Wikimedia projects. Some memes are more restrictive (“Copyrighted memes”) while others are less so (the Creative Commons license for example), but I’m getting ahead of myself.

Let’s first establish what a meme does, when you give advice to someone you’re attempting to spread your memes to them, if they take this advice your memes are successful, if you later change your mind then the memes have “died” in you but live on in the other person. Memes are very mechanical, they serve an informational purpose to people and can only be expressed through communication. Let’s say that the entire English language (like all human languages) is made-up of memes, every proverb is a meme in itself which is bound to the culture it hailed from, cultures are memes, countries are memes, religions are memes, and all of the influence they have on each other and external agents and organisations are also memes and/or memetic. What defines “a people” is determined by tribalistic self-identification, over the ages peoples have identified themselves as a part of a larger group through various things, in ancient times this was who ruled them, in the medieval period their religion ⛪ (and more particularly the denomination of that religion), in the early modern age this was language, in the modern age this was genetics + language (family 👪🏻). Some cultures ascribe memes to essentially “memeless” things such as the Japanese with blood types. In Wikimedia projects groups are divided based on their languages as languages are the primary form of non-direct communication, on Wikimedia Commons the non-lingual forms of communications such as imagery and/or symbolism are represented. An image represents a situation, an idea 💡, they can be used to convey information without language but not without memes, if a person has no prior knowledge of a subject then the image means less to them than to someone with prior knowledge of it. This is because the meme represented in the image exists in one person but not the other, this is why image titles and/or descriptions are so important for Wikimedia Commons, Wikidata is essentially “the meta-meme” where all “shared memes” between languages are identified and Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons is supposed to create this effect here.

Memes occupy every inch of a language for example the British saying “that’s not my cup of tea 🍵” and the Germans saying “that’s not my beer 🍺” is all based on their culture, as someone’s memes make up their personality and how they think and as people want to spread around their memes as much as possible there comes a drive for linguistic hegemony, the fact that you’re reading this in English means that the British obviously won and that their culture (and memes) are spreading into your mind with every word you read. Content is no different to this, why do some users prefer this version over that? Their memes want that. This is also most evident in “multilingual” Wikimedia projects such as the Wikimedia Commons, the Meta-wiki, Wikidata, and the “multilingual” Wikisource which are all primarily in English, no important conversation is ever conducted in any language other than English. The British cultural memes have completely taken over (heck, why is this in English and not in French?). This is what “memetic dominance” leads to, it’s the same reason why Abrahamism is the dominant global religion ⛪ while almost every other religion is quickly declining in numbers, Abrahamism is simply “more memetic” than other religions because it has a deeper concept of cosmic rewards (heaven) and cosmic punishments (hell) than any other religion. This model of punishment also extends to blocks and bans on Wikimedia projects (and why these projects make the internet suck more), the “blocked user meme” has two ✌🏻 (2) audiences, the blocked user himself/herself, and every other user, if the previous doesn't accept it, it spreads to the latter who will then enforce it until the previous gets infected with this bullying meme. This is why good faith edits that improve Wikimedia Commons and every other Wikimedia project get instantly reverted if they constitute “evasion” despite it seemingly being against one of the pillars of Wikimedia, but that’s no different than saying that human rights shouldn't apply to certain groups which then become “privileges”, blocks and bans are nothing other than a social stigma, much like how social stigmas themselves are memes. This is also why I heard users like Reguyla and MechQuester say that they’ve been discriminated against on non-Wikimedia websites like Wikia (Fandom) because of their global bans here, because it’s a social stigma meme that tries to spread itself as far as possible.

The thing about memes is is that a person is “the sum of their memes”, everything they think and do is based on the memes “circulating” in their brain 🧠 / mind. An online persona is no different and an online platform can only operate on the memes of its users 👥, the internet is the place where memes clash and new memes are being created every day, this is no different on Wikimedia projects where memes are content and different contributors want that content to look radically different. “Consensus” in Wikimedia projects may be purported to be “the best” or even “the most factually based” arguments but in reality the most popular memes prevail, this is why mainstream media outlets are automatically trusted and “alternative media” are shunned, both internal and external memes shape these projects in more ways that their volunteers can ever hope 🤞🏻 to understand. So let’s take a closer look at how memes function on Wikimedia projects and looking at Wikimedia projects through “the lens of memetica”...

Examples of memetic reproduction in Wikimedia projects

The way any page 📃 on any website looks is a combination of the memes of its creators, from the layout to all the images to the words used on the page, as Wikimedia projects are generally collaborative different memes contribute different memes to each page 📃. For example which image is at a page 📃 and why that image is used is very important as an image gives a visual representation of a subject, if you have an article about a whole genus of animals and place an image of a well-known and/or more common species it will give the reader an association with that genus, but if you only use a lesser known and/or less common (if not outright rare) species as an example some readers might get confused 😕 and won't understand which animals fall into this genus, but if you make a collage of multiple animals then you have yourself a good representation of the diversity of that genus at hand. First impressions matter and using either a random or non-random example can greatly influence how people will view that subject, for example on the Dutch-language Wikipedia the article for “Great Apes” includes a photograph of Sir Patrick Stewart as an example of a Homo Sapiens Sapiens in a row with other individual Great Apes, I know of a Dutch person who says that he now always thinks of Sir Patrick Stewart whenever he thinks of the human genepool and that of other Great Apes. Now how memes manifest themselves depends as much on the viewer as much as on the viewed material.

But let’s take Wikimedia projects on their face value and look at their largest (un)target (both “targeted” and “untargeted”) audience, young children. People of all ages consume the information on these websites but more often than not children depend on Wikimedia websites for “their daily dose of information” or “their daily dose of (free) knowledge”.

Wikimedia Commons is probably unique in how it allows for the propagation of the most memes, every photograph reflects the photographer and reveals a lot about the photographer in the file's metadata, it reveals with what device and what software 👩‍💻 the image was taken while revealing the timing and oftentimes the location of the camera 📷. However the subject itself photographed explains what grabbed the photographer’s eye 👁 at the moment of documentation. Other files 📁 uploaded also reflects the hobby(‘s) and (other) interests of the uploader in the form of what gets uploaded here. When I first came to Wikimedia Commons images of Japanese cash coins were numerous while images of Vietnamese cash coins scarce, now (non-Ryukyuan) cash coins in general have been intimately covered because of my own personal interests in this monetary history. It's quite telling that interiors of churches are well documented while storefronts and shops aren’t, Wikimedia Commons actually isn't “a mirror” of Wikipedia's as one would expect, many subjects that are covered in detail in one isn't necessarily even remotely covered in the other. As I’ve stated before “the creation of content begets more creation of content”, users are more likely to create more content if similar content already exists, some people are “pioneers” while others are “followers”, though I personally edit with a philosophy of “Monkey 🐵 see 🙈, Monkey 🐵 do 🐒” I’m oftentimes forced to pioneer in some fields if no precedents exist. If major changes occur in a system it is “the pioneers” who lead the way, as everyone else usually sheepishly follow these “pioneers” their memes get propagated even further and become the de facto standard method of how these things are handled.

Wikimedia Commons as a website is mostly built by two ✌🏻 (2) types of photographers, those that take a large amount of photographs and categorise their files 📁 and those that only upload a handful of files 📁 (or even a single file 📁). Those who invest more into the website have the website reflect them more, even years after they’ve retired or were indefinitely blocked / indefinitely banned from the website (as contributors) their methods and “memes” still persist in future generations of contributors. Everything we do manifests itself into memes and can be seen as a manifestation of (those) memes.

On Wikimedia Commons photography is memes, meanwhile categories are memes as users 👥 (such as myself) are inspired to create more images if a category already exists, I usually check if categories already exist and then try to “fill” them or when I create new categories I usually base them on existing categories and/or (their) styles. Because of this the pioneers’ memes not just survive but thrive and progress because of my actions. These memes are not just ever-expanding, new memes are built on them. For this reason the moment you create content today, your content is still creating more content tomorrow in a positive feedback loop, this is the power of memes.

Memetic castration/sterilisation and the suppression of ideas

Wikimedia sysops generally enjoy a Privilegium de non appellando, now the full English-language Wikipedia article about this subject states “The Latin-originating phrase "privilegium de non appellando" words meaning "privilege of (having the right to) not be appealed". The phrase denotes the status by which a person or an institution is exempted from the jurisdiction of the judiciary in matters of appeal, in which a lower court's decision has its proceedings reviewed by a higher court.” (Attributions), from this article we can draw a couple of parallels with how blocks and bans work on Wikimedia websites, namely that a block or ban imposed by a sysop on one Wikimedia website can not be overruled by any external forces, Wikimedia websites have a lot of users and user groups that can ban users but they cannot unban users banned by another group, if a user is banned from the Catalan-language Wikipedia by a local sysop they cannot appeal this block on any other Wiki and users appealing local blocks on the Meta-Wiki is often seen as an additional reason for a permanent ban there, if any steward finds this enough they can then ban this user from participating on any Wikimedia website through “a global lock 🔒” (de facto global bans), these global locks are rarely if ever reversed and now this user (or more specifically the human being behind it, in a psuedobiological sense) is also banned from participating here on Wikimedia Commons or on the English-language Wikipedia, the Wiktionary, Wikitravel, Etc. No local admin has the power to overturn this global ban, however this “global lock 🔒” is also locally enforced, local ArbComs are also powerless to overturn them as much as how global stewards cannot overturn any local blocks. On Wikimedia websites every “trusted” user has the power to ban, but very few can unban. Sysops also aren’t allowed to unblock a user without first discussing the blocking admin (in the rare case the does happen these are called “cowboy unblocks” as had happened with the uncontraversial unblock of “User:Colton Cosmic”). New tools are written every day on Wikimedia websites to exclude people, yet very rarely are tools and services made more inclusive.

Another important factor in how blocks and bans affect people / the human beings behind the account(s) is through “memetic castration” or “memetic sterilisation” which seeks to eradicate all future occurring behaviours or “meme patterns”/”memepaterns” of a user (sockhunting) or those who wish to implement similar changes either on behalf of or independently from that person (meathunting). In reality however no block or ban have any intrinsic meaning unless they are being actively enforced and this doesn't exclusively extend just to the enforcers, the person being enforced also has to legitimise it, but this is again the “banmeme” (not to be confused with “a memeban” or Article 13 (thirteen,),), this enforcement eventually warps into a twisted begrudging form of consent on behalf of the enforced if they were to internalise their block/ban. A six (6) year old who vandalises a bit for fun gets banned and then a six (6) year old who genuinely wants to help gets banned for “competence issues”, if both of these kids later turn 60 (sixty) and never appeal their ban and then start editing constructively then all of their edits would still be considered to be “disruptive” because sanctions simply never expire, it doesn't matter how much you as a person change, if Russavia would lose all of his memories tomorrow in a car 🚗 accident and become a completely different person who would become a prolific constructive editor and shows up at a meetup event in real life and would be recognised as who he is the Wikimedia “community” would immediately ban him again. Blocks and bans are biological, not mental, or so do sysops silently say.

Now when a sysop dislikes a person they can sanction them with whatever restrictions without scrutiny, in fact on Wikidata a Wikidata-sysop commented how my signatured contained “spam”, this “spam” is an interwiki link 🔗 to a list of Wikipedia articles created under this account in different languages which is literally the purpose of Wikidata so using the logic of this specific Wikidata-sysop the entire project that is Wikidata could be considered “spam”. Of course users commenting on a signature is purely based on the taste of the user and is only ever enforced when the person with the opinion is a sysop while the other user isn't, this is why Koavf (Justin Knapp) is allowed to get away with a signature that would be considered “disruptive editing” and a basis for an indefinite community ban if that same signature was used by “a non-trusted user”, sysops can measure in double standards and have no-one to answer to, there simply are no “rogue admins” because there are no “correct admins”, while Wikimedia websites aren’t “a Wild, Wild West” for other users 👥, sysops still basically enjoy unlimited power and have no actual rules or bodies to answer to other than themselves while rules (mostly vague and/or unwritten ones) are strictly enforced for literally everyone else.

Giving a single class of users 👥 a monopoly on the power of which memes may and may not spread is dangerous for the goal to try to create a sum of all human knowledge, a filtered version of this goal 🥅 is admitting defeat, and when you're blocked / banned it is YOU who are being filtered out of this sum, so Wikimedia can never truly be a sum of human knowledge if they deliberately allow for this form of censorship. On Wikimedia Commons some users want images of banned users to be liable for speedy deletion in the same way that articles and other pages by editors are on most Wikipedia's, this wouldn't serve anyone other than those that (emotionally) benefit from enforcing blocks and bans, in fact some sysops already enforce this as an unwritten rule despite being repeatedly shutdown in the Village Pumps. Ignoring community derivatives has no consequences if the community silently decides that banned educators have no rights.

Why more content is always better

Because more memes create more memes exponentially it is important to value content for what it is, a collection of abstract ideas that spread like the first single-celled organisms did. This ecosystem thrives on ideas, so always let the diversity of ideas grow.

Original publication 📤

Sent 📩 from my Microsoft Lumia 950 XL with Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile 📱. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 23:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC) (Microsoft Outlook e-mail 📧 draft published for reference “Projectmemes 8. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privilegium_de_non_appellandoTRUNGZZZizzzFinalyyyyzzzzzDonezzzzzzzzzzzzz”.).