7
edits
Changes
MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Friday November 22, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to searchUser talk:MyWikiBiz (view source)
Revision as of 13:56, 19 September 2009
, 13:56, 19 September 2009→wiki review :-(
::As far as WR's ownership goes, I have made a post [http://forum.encyc.org/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=173 here] in regards to that, and I asked some questions there. My e-mail is happydelsim (at) aol.com, if you want to contact me. [[User:Jonas Rand|Jonas Rand]] 20:23, 12 August 2009 (PDT)
::As far as WR's ownership goes, I have made a post [http://forum.encyc.org/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=173 here] in regards to that, and I asked some questions there. My e-mail is happydelsim (at) aol.com, if you want to contact me. [[User:Jonas Rand|Jonas Rand]] 20:23, 12 August 2009 (PDT)
:::For over twenty years, I've been working on the problem of mass organization in the presence of known problems with such, the biggest problem being noise. On a small scale, we know very well how to operate as what I call a Free Association, which is non-coercive, open, tolerant ... but also able to make decisions, if there are skilled participants or facilitators present, without taking forever. What I stumbled across is a technique for scaling this. The basic mechanism for this was proposed on Wikipedia about two years ago and promptly, without understanding (or any danger) rejected, and the attempt was made to delete and salt it, which was pretty outrageous; in spite of massive !votes to delete, older and more experienced editors prevailed, and WP:PRX still exists. The mechanism doesn't explain how it would work; the term "proxy" is a bit misleading, but the European term for the same function, "advisor" only conveys half the meaning. In any case, I could write megabytes on this, and have, but I won't sink your Talk page with it. FA/DP technology ("Free Association with Delegable Proxy"), in theory, can function in very difficult environments, it is truly subversive, as long as an active interest group appears, but it is non-destructively subversive, it simply fails if an attempt is made to abuse it. Long story, as I imagine you can guess. It is possible to reform Wikipedia, and fairly quickly, and with no central structures that would simply replace one set of abusers with another.
:::Wikipedia Review has become a general noticeboard for Wikipedia, which is a positive function. It's essential that this kind of function exist; however, there are no effective noise-filtering mechanisms for WR, and probably such cannot be built there. But they could be built elsewhere. The problems of efficiency and noise were mostly neglected when the wiki model evolved; the only attempt to deal with noise has been through banning, which doesn't resolve disputes. There is a much better way, addressing the noise problem which is the real issue, often. To mention my own travails, the majority should not have to bear with massive debate over issues that it cares not about, such as cold fusion, and that it knows nothing about except for rumor and mass media images. ArbComm is running as if the way to try a case is to open the court and allow anyone to speak. That works when the scale is very small. Rapidly, the scale at Wikipedia became too large, but editors, having experience with how well it can work on a small scale, were attached to the open wiki model. The open wiki model is excellent, but only under certain conditions, and a better understanding of what is organizationally possible would allow keeping the baby while discarding the bathwater. --[[User:Abd|Abd]] 06:56, 19 September 2009 (PDT)
