MyWikiBiz - User contributions [en]

Directory:Anthony/files

2010-12-25T01:13:31Z

Anthony: Created page with '*a76e9f8f1a6de20a1ca05a6d30a5b657 enwiki-20100312-pages-meta-history.xml'

*a76e9f8f1a6de20a1ca05a6d30a5b657 enwiki-20100312-pages-meta-history.xml

Directory:Anthony

2010-12-25T01:13:07Z

Anthony:

Articles by Anthony. Content is copyrighted, all rights are reserved, and content is not released under a free license, unless otherwise noted. If you'd like a license to use some or all of my content, or if you would like to collaborate with me on one or more articles, contact me via MyWikiBiz messaging. Significant contributors will be offered joint copyright ownership of those articles we collaborate on. Otherwise, for minor corrections feel free to edit directly, and for more major concerns please use the discussion page, and let me know there if you are granting me a license on your discussion page contribution.

*[[/share-alike]]
*[[/hyperphysically existing "stuff"]]
*[[/files]]

Directory:Anthony/hyperphysically existing "stuff"

2010-12-17T17:05:50Z

Anthony:

'''Hyperphysically existing "stuff"''' is a "possibility" proposed by a Wikipedia editor during [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Universe&diff=179000847&oldid=178875548 a December 2007 edit] to the Wikipedia article ''universe'', which changed the definition from "everything that exists" to "everything that physically exists". [[Wikipedia user ''Standonbible'']] is believed to have been the perpetrator of this edit. He has been polled on his talk page and asked to confirm or deny having made the edit, however his talk page says that he "is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries". Apparently he believes that Wikipedia itself is part of the hyperphysical universe, and not part of ''real life''.

This edit persisted for two and a half years, finally being reverted in June 2010 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universe&diff=366848900&oldid=366793574], although it was modified in the meantime to state the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Berkeley Berkeleyesque] view that the universe is not that which physically exists, but is in fact that which is "perceived to exist physically".

Not much is known about hyperphysically existing "stuff", however, it can be shown conclusively that '''if''' hyperphysically existing "stuff" exists, that it necessarily exists hyperphysically.

==References==
*[http://blog.p2pedia.org/2009/01/hyperphysically-existing-stuff.html Hyperphysically existing "stuff"] at P2Pedia

Directory:Anthony/hyperphysically existing "stuff"

2010-12-17T16:52:21Z

Anthony:

'''Hyperphysically existing "stuff"''' is a "possibility" proposed by a Wikipedia editor during [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Universe&diff=179000847&oldid=178875548 a December 2007 edit] to the Wikipedia article ''universe'', which changed the definition from "everything that exists" to "everything that physically exists". [[Wikipedia user ''Standonbible'']] is believed to have been the perpetrator of this edit. He has been polled on his talk page and asked to confirm or deny having made the edit, however his talk page says that he "is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries". Apparently he believes that Wikipedia itself is part of the hyperphysical universe, and not part of ''real life''.

This edit persisted for two and a half years, finally being reverted in June 2010 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universe&diff=366848900&oldid=366793574], although it was modified in the meantime to state the view that the universe is not that which physically exists, but is in fact that which is "perceived to exist physically".

Not much is known about hyperphysically existing "stuff", however, it can be shown conclusively that '''if''' hyperphysically existing "stuff" exists, that it necessarily exists hyperphysically.

==References==
*[http://blog.p2pedia.org/2009/01/hyperphysically-existing-stuff.html Hyperphysically existing "stuff"] at P2Pedia

Directory:Anthony/hyperphysically existing "stuff"

2010-12-17T16:51:21Z

Anthony:

'''Hyperphysically existing "stuff"''' is a "possibility" proposed by a Wikipedia editor during [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Universe&diff=179000847&oldid=178875548 a December 2007 edit] to the Wikipedia article ''universe'', which changed the definition from "everything that exists" to "everything that physically exists". [[Wikipedia user ''Standonbible'']] is believed to have been the perpetrator of this edit. He has been polled on his talk page and asked to confirm or deny having made the edit, however his talk page says that he "is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries". Apparently he believes that Wikipedia itself is part of the hyperphysical universe, and not part of ''real life''.

This edit persisted for two and a half years, finally being reverted in June 2010 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universe&diff=366848900&oldid=366793574], although it was modified in the meantime to state the view that the universe is not that which physically existed, but is in fact that which is "perceived to exist physically".

Not much is known about hyperphysically existing "stuff", however, it can be shown conclusively that '''if''' hyperphysically existing "stuff" exists, that it necessarily exists hyperphysically.

==References==
*[http://blog.p2pedia.org/2009/01/hyperphysically-existing-stuff.html Hyperphysically existing "stuff"] at P2Pedia

Directory:Anthony/hyperphysically existing "stuff"

2010-12-17T16:37:14Z

Anthony:

'''Hyperphysically existing "stuff"''' is a "possibility" proposed by a Wikipedia editor during [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Universe&diff=179000847&oldid=178875548 a December 2007 edit] to the Wikipedia article ''universe'', which changed the definition from "everything that exists" to "everything that physically exists". [[Wikipedia user ''Standonbible'']] is believed to have been the perpetrator of this edit. He has been polled on his talk page and asked to confirm or deny having made the edit, however his talk page says that he "is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries". Apparently he believes that Wikipedia itself is part of the hyperphysical universe, and not part of ''real life''.

Not much is known about hyperphysically existing "stuff", however, it can be shown conclusively that '''if''' hyperphysically existing "stuff" exists, that it necessarily exists hyperphysically.

==References==
*[http://blog.p2pedia.org/2009/01/hyperphysically-existing-stuff.html Hyperphysically existing "stuff"] at P2Pedia

Directory:Anthony/hyperphysically existing "stuff"

2010-12-17T16:36:12Z

Anthony:

'''Hyperphysically existing "stuff"''' is a "possibility" proposed by a Wikipedia editor during [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Universe&diff=179000847&oldid=178875548 a December 2007 edit] to the Wikipedia article ''universe'', which changed the definition from "everything that exists" to "everything that physically exists". [[Wikipedia user ''Standonbible'']] is believed to have been the perpetrator of this edit. He has been polled on his talk page and asked to confirm or deny having made the edit, however his talk page says that he "is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries". Apparently he believes that Wikipedia itself is part of the hyperphysical universe, and not part of ''real life''.

Not much is known about hyperphysically existing "stuff", however, it can be shown that '''if''' hyperphysically existing "stuff" exists, that it necessarily exists hyperphysically.

==References==
*[http://blog.p2pedia.org/2009/01/hyperphysically-existing-stuff.html Hyperphysically existing "stuff"] at P2Pedia

Directory:Anthony/hyperphysically existing "stuff"

2010-12-17T16:34:12Z

Anthony: Created page with ''''Hyperphysically existing "stuff"''' is a "possibility" proposed by a Wikipedia editor during a December 2007 edit to the Wikipedia article ''universe'', which changed the defi…'

'''Hyperphysically existing "stuff"''' is a "possibility" proposed by a Wikipedia editor during a December 2007 edit to the Wikipedia article ''universe'', which changed the definition from "everything that exists" to "everything that physically exists". [[Wikipedia user ''Standonbible'']] is believed to have been the perpetrator of this edit. He has been polled on his talk page and asked to confirm or deny having made the edit, however his talk page says that he "is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries". Apparently he believes that Wikipedia itself is part of the hyperphysical universe, and not part of ''real life''.

Not much is known about hyperphysically existing "stuff", however, it can be shown that '''if''' hyperphysically existing "stuff" exists, that it necessarily exists hyperphysically.

==References==
*[http://blog.p2pedia.org/2009/01/hyperphysically-existing-stuff.html Hyperphysically existing "stuff"] at P2Pedia

Directory:Anthony

2010-12-17T16:18:18Z

Anthony:

Directory:Anthony/share-alike

2010-12-10T16:32:42Z

Anthony:

'''Share-alike''' is a term invented by [[Creative Commons]]. They describe it, in plain English, as "If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one." <ref>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/</ref>

The context of "alter, transform, or build upon" is that which creates a [[derivative work]], as opposed to that which creates a [[collective work]]. Creative commons has created its own, international, definitions, using the terms "adaptation" and "collection", but the distinction roughly mirrors the US concept of derivative work vs. collective work (see <ref>[http://www.ivanhoffman.com/derivative3.html Derivative vs. Collective Works] by Ivan Hoffman, B.A., J.D.</ref>).

The concept of '''share-alike''' embraces and extends the earlier concept of "[[copyleft]]". The term "copyleft" is defined by the FSF as "a general method for making a program (or other work) [[free]], and
requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free as well." <ref>[http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/ What is Copyleft?]</ref>

"'''Share-alike'''" works, unlike "copylefted" works, don't have to be free. For example, [[CC-BY-NC-SA]] is a share alike work which is not free. <ref>[http://robmyers.org/weblog/2008/02/noncommercial-sharealike-is-not-copyleft.html NonCommercial Sharealike Is Not Copyleft] by [[Rob Myers]]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

Directory:Anthony

2010-12-10T16:30:30Z

Anthony:

Directory:Anthony

2010-12-10T16:25:07Z

Anthony:

Directory:Anthony

2010-12-10T16:24:30Z

Anthony:

Articles by Anthony. Content is copywrited, all rights are reserved, and content is not released under a free license, unless otherwise noted. If you'd like a license to use some or all of my content, or if you would like to collaborate with me on one or more articles, contact me via MyWikiBiz messaging. Otherwise, please use the discussion page, and let me know there if you are granting me a license on your discussion page contribution.

*[[/share-alike]]

Directory:Anthony

2010-12-10T16:23:38Z

Anthony:

Articles by Anthony. Content is all rights reserved and not released under a free license unless otherwise noted. If you'd like a license to use some or all of my content, or if you would like to collaborate with me on one or more articles, contact me via MyWikiBiz messaging. Otherwise, please use the discussion page, and let me know there if you are granting me a license on your discussion page contribution.

*[[/share-alike]]

Directory:Anthony/share-alike

2010-12-10T16:15:30Z

Anthony:

'''Share-alike''' is a term invented by [[Creative Commons]]. They describe it, in plain English, as "If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one." <ref>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/</ref>

The context of "alter, transform, or build upon" is that which creates a [[derivative work]], as opposed to that which creates a [[collective work]]. Creative commons has created its own, international, definitions, using the terms "adaptation" and "collection", but the distinction roughly mirrors the US concept of derivative work vs. collective work (see <ref>[http://www.ivanhoffman.com/derivative3.html Derivative vs. Collective Works] by Ivan Hoffman, B.A., J.D.</ref>).

The concept of '''share-alike''' embraces and extends the earlier concept of "[[copyleft]]". The term "copyleft" is defined by the FSF as "a general method for making a program (or other work) [[free]], and
requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free as well." <ref>http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/</ref>

"'''Share-alike'''" works, unlike "copylefted" works, don't have to be free. For example, [[CC-BY-NC-SA]] is a share alike work which is not free. <ref>[http://robmyers.org/weblog/2008/02/noncommercial-sharealike-is-not-copyleft.html NonCommercial Sharealike Is Not Copyleft] by [[Rob Myers]]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

Directory:Anthony/share-alike

2010-12-10T16:14:13Z

Anthony:

'''Share-alike''' is a term invented by [[Creative Commons]]. They describe it, in plain English, as "If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one." <ref>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/</ref>

The context of "alter, transform, or build upon" is that which creates a [[derivative work]], as opposed to that which creates a [[collective work]]. Creative commons has created its own, international, definitions, using the terms "adaptation" and "collection", but the distinction roughly mirrors the US concept of derivative work vs. collective work (see <ref>[http://www.ivanhoffman.com/derivative3.html Derivative vs. Collective Works] by Ivan Hoffman, B.A., J.D.</ref>).

The concept of '''share-alike''' embraces and extends the earlier concept of "[[copyleft]]". The term "copyleft" is defined by the FSF as "a general method for making a program (or other work) [[free]], and
requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free as well." <ref>http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/</ref>

"'''Share-alike'''" works, unlike "copylefted" works, don't have to be free. For example, [[CC-BY-NC-SA]] is a share alike work which is not free. <ref>[http://robmyers.org/weblog/2008/02/noncommercial-sharealike-is-not-copyleft.html NonCommercial Sharealike Is Not Copyleft]</ref>

==References==
<references/>

Directory:Anthony/share-alike

2010-12-10T16:12:21Z

Anthony:

'''Share-alike''' is a term invented by [[Creative Commons]]. They describe it, in plain English, as "If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one." <ref>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/</ref>

The context of "alter, transform, or build upon" is that which creates a [[derivative work]], as opposed to that which creates a [[collective work]]. Creative commons has created its own, international, definitions, using the terms "adaptation" and "collection", but the distinction roughly mirrors the US concept of derivative work vs. collective work (see [http://www.ivanhoffman.com/derivative3.html Derivative vs. Collective Works by Ivan Hoffman, B.A., J.D.]).

The concept of '''share-alike''' embraces and extends the earlier concept of "[[copyleft]]". The term "copyleft" is defined by the FSF as "a general method for making a program (or other work) [[free]], and
requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free as well." <ref>http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/</ref>

"'''Share-alike'''" works, unlike "copylefted" works, don't have to be free. For example, [[CC-BY-NC-SA]] is a share alike work which is not free. <ref>http://robmyers.org/weblog/2008/02/noncommercial-sharealike-is-not-copyleft.html</ref>

==References==
<references/>

Directory:Anthony/share-alike

2010-12-10T16:12:05Z

Anthony:

'''Share-alike''' is a term invented by [[Creative Commons]]. They describe it, in plain English, as "If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one." <ref>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/</ref>

The context of "alter, transform, or build upon" is that which creates a [[derivative work]], as opposed to that which creates a [[collective work]]. Creative commons has created its own, international, definitions, using the terms "adaptation" and "collection", but the distinction roughly mirrors the US concept of derivative work vs. collective work (see [http://www.ivanhoffman.com/derivative3.html Derivative vs. Collective Works by Ivan Hoffman, B.A., J.D.]).

The concept of '''share-alike''' embraces and extends the earlier concept of "[[copyleft]]". The term "copyleft" is defined by the FSF as "a general method for making a program (or other work) [[free]], and
requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free as well." <ref>http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/</ref>

"'''Share-alike'''" works, unlike "copylefted" works, don't have to be free. For example, [[CC-BY-NC-SA]] is a share alike work which is not free. <ref>http://robmyers.org/weblog/2008/02/noncommercial-sharealike-is-not-copyleft.html</ref>

<references/>

Directory:Anthony/share-alike

2010-12-10T16:10:42Z

Anthony: Created page with ''''Share-alike''' is a term invented by Creative Commons. They describe it, in plain English, as "If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the res…'

'''Share-alike''' is a term invented by [[Creative Commons]]. They describe it, in plain English, as "If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one." <ref>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/</ref>

The context of "alter, transform, or build upon" is that which creates a [[derivative work]], as opposed to that which creates a [[collective work]]. Creative commons has created its own, international, definitions, using the terms "adaptation" and "collection", but the distinction roughly mirrors the US concept of derivative work vs. collective work (see [http://www.ivanhoffman.com/derivative3.html Derivative vs. Collective Works by Ivan Hoffman, B.A., J.D.]).

The concept of '''share-alike''' embraces and extends the earlier concept of "[[copyleft]]". The term "copyleft" is defined by the FSF as "a general method for making a program (or other work) [[free]], and
requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free as well." (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/) "'''Share-alike'''" works, unlike "copylefted" works, don't have to be free. For example, the CC-BY-NC-SA is a share alike work which is not free. <ref>http://robmyers.org/weblog/2008/02/noncommercial-sharealike-is-not-copyleft.html</ref>

<references/>

Directory:Anthony

2010-12-10T16:06:00Z

Anthony: Created page with '*/share-alike'

*[[/share-alike]]

Directory talk:MyWikiBiz popular image contest

2010-09-01T18:43:08Z

Anthony:

==Your contest guesses here==

* Example File name #1. Example File name #2. Example File name #3. (sign with <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 17:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

* Guesses: 1.) File:SteveSmithShirtless.jpg; 2.) File:1935 Mickey Mouse (ing) (promo) 01.jpg; 3.) File:200 dollars.jpg [[User:Horsey|Horsey]] 17:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
<gallery>
image:SteveSmithShirtless.jpg
image:1935 Mickey Mouse (ing) (promo) 01.jpg
image:200 dollars.jpg
</gallery>

*1) File:Html color chart.gif. 2) File:Flag of the United States.svg. 3) File:Flag of Canada.svg. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 17:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
<gallery>
image:Html color chart.gif
image:Flag of the United States.svg
image:Flag of Canada.svg
</gallery>
*http://www.mywikibiz.com/File:Jimbo_sleepy.jpg http://www.mywikibiz.com/File:Pumpkin_2006.jpg http://www.mywikibiz.com/File:Gregory_Kohs_headshot.jpg [[User:Anthony|Anthony]] 18:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Directory:Geofabrik

2009-11-06T16:02:48Z

Anthony: New page:   <!-- The following is a simple Infobox desig...

{{Infobox_Company
| company_name = [[Company_Name:=Geofabrik]]
| foundation = Incoporated in 2007, "but the people behind it have been at it for much longer" <ref>http://www.geofabrik.de/geofabrik/geofabrik.html</ref>
| founder = [[Frederik Ramm]]
| location = [[Karlsruhe]]
| key_people = [[Key_Person1:=Jochen Topf|[[Directory:Jochen Topf|Jochen Topf]]]]
}}

==References==
<div class="references-small" style="-moz-column-count:1; column-count:1;">
<references />
</div>

== External links ==
*http://www.geofabrik.de/

===Share this page===
<sharethis />

===Geolocation===
{{Mapit-US-cityscale|49.008699|8.38274}}

Talk:Criticism of crowdsourcing

2008-10-10T20:29:06Z

Anthony: /* Support */

==Notes & Queries==

'''JA:''' I guess my first criticism would be a worry about the name "crowdsourcing". It clangs me wrong somehow. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 12:12, 8 October 2008 (PDT)

'''NR:''' My thoughts: Do I even have real-world credentials? Now there's a problem. Why not have a message board ''and'' a wiki? There are good and bad points to having either one.

'''NR:''' On the thought of what domain name to use: I think <s>MimboJimbo.com</s> (no, that is a very bad idea) something that implies what we're doing (Wiki..something) would be suitable. (Well OK taking the piss out of Jimbo, we can do that in other ways without using the domain name to do it, it also doesn't seem professional, why I thought that was a good idea, I'll never know) — [[User:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''Nathan'''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''talk'''</span>]])</sup> <sub>/ <em>19:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)</em></sub>

'''JA:''' I've grown weary of fixating on (1) Wikipedia (2) Wikipedia Personae. Yes, most of our concrete data and hard experience comes from those sources — though I did see the very same dynamics in Citizendium despite the one bug fix that Sanger tried to implement — but we need to view that data and experience as cases under generic concepts, and focus on the genus not the individuals. So "MimboJimbo" would probably lead us down the wrong path. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 12:30, 8 October 2008 (PDT)

'''PW:''' I'm afraid that I really don't like "MimboJimbo" either, as it gives a rather "Monty Python" impression and is also inherently negative. If we want to be taken seriously, we've got to have a neutral name which doesn't imply a result (we already know that the result is going to be negative, but we don't need to come out and say that...Best to let people read the evidence and make their own minds up). So, the actual name of the site should be neutral, rather scientific, yet precise. I've suggested "WikiAnalysis" (first choice) and "WikiReader" (second choice)...However, there must be other possibilities.

'''BK:''' There is a professor at Kansas State University who does ethnographic studies of cyberspace cultures. One of his classes focused on the phenomenon of YouTube. He recently gave a [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPAO-lZ4_hU presentation of his work] at the Library of Congress. It's worth watching, mainly for the example of his kind of scholarship. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 20:15, 9 October 2008 (PDT)

:First seven minutes are very engaging. I'm left with the question, "where did Wikipedia make the mistaken turns away from this magical sense of joyful empowerment?" I'll continue later. Bed time now. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 20:33, 9 October 2008 (PDT)

::WP made the same mistake that humankind made back in the days of Hammurabi. They adopted a lamentably idiotic community regulatory mechanism. They adopted a regulatory mechanism ideally suited to games or drama, but ill-suited to an academic enterprise. There really isn't any excuse for it. It was a fundamental failure of leadership. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:32, 9 October 2008 (PDT)

'''DT:''' Have you reserved any .org or .info domains, in case the project turns into a noncommercial informational resource rather than a commercial entity? [[User:Dtobias|Dtobias]] 20:44, 9 October 2008 (PDT)

'''AJD:''' Personally I'd favor a forum with a more positive focus. But if you're going to stick with the negative, what exactly is it that you're criticizing? Criticism of "unethical, unprofessional practices of information management on the Internet" seems too broad. Maybe limit it to so called "user-generated" content on the Internet? [[User:Anthony|Anthony]] 13:10, 10 October 2008 (PDT)

==Consider the Crowdsource==

'''GK:''' The only ready synonym for "crowdsourcing" that comes to my mind is "user-generated content", or "Web 2.0". Nathan, you have credentials, in that you have a location, a job, and schooling, which is really all I'm looking for. I think MimboJimbo is way off... I was just mentioning which domains I actually hold claim to. Really, I'm thinking that the domain should be something simple and descriptive (but still available), along the lines of "critiquesofthecrowd.com". -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 13:37, 8 October 2008 (PDT)

'''JA:''' Okay, let's talk about that. I probably need to start by trying to articulate my inklings, irklings, or reservations about the term.
* When I hear "crowdsource" it calls to mind one of the prime directives of critical thinking, to wit, "Consider The Source!"
** That leads me to ask:
*** Is the crowd the source?
*** If we mean that the crowd is the source, is that a Good, a Bad, or an Indifferent thing?
'''JA:''' That's about as far as I get for now. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 13:52, 8 October 2008 (PDT)

'''PW:''' The whole idea of "crowd sourcing" as it relates to Wikis is a fallacy. First of all, not everyone has access to a computer and of those that do, not everyone is necessarily able to forcibly vehicle their point of view effectively against the "Voice of the Crowd". The demographics of Wikipedia already show the inherent problems with calling what is produced "the sum of all human knowledge" as there are clearly elements of the subset of humans who are not present in the demographics of Wikipedia. So, what is happening in Web 2.0 is clearly not "crowd" sourcing, but the re-enforcement of the idea that "we are those who define reality". It's a celebration of "Us", which implies a "them" and the division that this implies. The WP:En experience serves very well as a test case for this hypothesis. So, perhaps the "crowd sourcing" angle is too limitative and not the entire phenomenon?

'''NR:''' I actually do not have two of the things that you mention (I've expanded on this via e-mail). Anyway, that's a better idea for a domain name. It's more descriptive in terms of what the site would actually do. I don't know what I was thinking, really. I also agree, it's probably not possible (or prudent) to use "Wikipedia" as part of the domain name. — [[User:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''Nathan'''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''talk'''</span>]])</sup> <sub>/ <em>22:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)</em></sub>

'''PW:''' Nathan, I don't think that this has to be so complicated. We can trace you to a real person and it's obvious that you are indeed that person. That's fine by me.

'''NR:''' Okay, that works then. — [[User:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''Nathan'''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''talk'''</span>]])</sup> <sub>/ <em>17:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)</em></sub>

==Suggest we move to the "article"==

'''GK:''' Might I suggest that we move from "thoughtful conversation mode" here on the Discussion page, over to the wiki-mode "Article" page. Let's craft a collection of principles and ideas that we all can live with, and once we get to that point, we can decide on exactly how to execute. If we start to see "edit wars" on the Article page, even among us friends, then that will itself be an indicator that our ideas are not on a level-set.

'''JA:''' For reasons I will tell you about off-line, my mind and time are a bit scattered right now, and I probably won't be up to careful analysis or sustained discussion for another week or so. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 07:07, 9 October 2008 (PDT)

'''GK:''' We'll miss you, but we fully understand, Jon. This is only "web kvetching", you know, and should be toward the bottom of all our priorities!

==A word from Joe==

WR, in my humble opinion, is just extension of the WP thought police and arbcom, and such has lost sight of it's mission. WR is now, just an apologist for WP and a haven for the miscretin wikipeidiot admins and other power drunk punks, who's respect for others and rule of law is non existent. WP is a Canker Sore on the internet and, in my simple opinion, can not ever be reformed. Wikipedia must be dismantled, it's tax exempt status, revoked and the servers, which houses WP purge of the stinking Cancerous mess of wikipeida and it's lies, mis-information, and virtual altar to the tin god Jimbo, the magnificent.[[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 22:52, 9 October 2008 (PDT)

== A word from Blissyu2 ==

My main criticism of Wikipedia is now and has always been the ability for Wikipedia to change truth on important issues. On many very important issues there are multiple viewpoints that must be expressed in order to get an accurate perspective, and it is impossible for anyone to speak or write about them without major bias. Trying to remove the bias leads to removing the factual aspects of the case. Because Wikipedia aims for Neutral Point of View, they forbid experts to comment on topics, which leads to a lot of idiots writing dumb articles. On top of that, experts do secretly edit articles, and secretly control them, to pervert the article. What really should happen is that articles are owned by experts. If an article cannot be written by just one person, then multiple competing articles should exist to reflect all biases. Biases are an important part of historical revelation. I have written many times, and proven pretty conclusively I think, that Wikipedia's article on the Port Arthur massacre, a very important event in Australian history, and even moreso to myself personally, is written horrifically inaccurately. Not only that, but the majority of people who have contributed to it have tried to present accurate information, but have been forbidden from doing so. Because of Wikipedia's inaccurate display of that incident, the generally accepted truth of that issue has changed dramatically, with today as many as 20% of people accepting Wikipedia's version of events, as opposed to less than 5% 5 years ago. On top of that, when Thebainer added the "Conspiracy theories" section, listing some of the least well known theories, and only mentioning their conclusions, rather than the facts that they are based on, combined with saying why they are not believed, he introduced what is called "disinformation". It pretends that these are the only alternatives, when in reality they are not the only alternatives, and indeed represent a minority view even smaller than the minority view presented by Wikipedia.

Wikipedia Review was a good concept, and I think that we can see that in most respects it worked well. The main failure, in my opinion, is in a lack of loyalty. Igor Alexander, the founder of the site, was banned from his own site when we moved. On top of that, then we had all of the original founders, except for Selina, banned from the site, in addition to more than half of the people who have ever held administrator status. Indeed, we have only had perhaps 5 or 6 people ever banned that were NOT administrators or people with power on the site. This reeks of a power struggle, and is quite frankly not on. This kind of thing shouldn't exist anywhere. Perhaps more could have been done to try to stop it, but it is too late now, and I felt like I couldn't do anything more at the time.

Furthermore, a second major problem is that Wikipedia Review began to focus more on popularity and less on integrity. Ever since that director came on (Col Scott, I forget his real name), Wikipedia Review has focussed on what would make them look good rather than what was the right thing to do. For ages we were accused of doing the wrong thing, but then we started to actually do it.

Poetlister should never have been promoted, because Poetlister was never regular enough to warrant it. Poetlister was also the subject of a criticism, hence a poor choice as administrator. Guy perhaps should have been promoted, but they should not have considered both at once, since they were speaking with one voice. Whether they were separate people or not, it is not on.

I do not think that using real names is the answer. That was tried on Citizendium, and it doesn't really make things any better. In the end, if you use your real name on the internet, it just means that the anonymous millions will have more things to smear your name with. When you are talking about criticism and such, you are putting your name out there, and it is dangerous to list your real name.

Besides which, I have known many incidences when people have used what they claimed were their real names, but they actually weren't. It doesn't actually help that situation all that much. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 04:40, 10 October 2008 (PDT)

== [[Directory:The_Wikipedia_Point_of_View | The Wikipedia Point of View]] ==

Just to add my two pennies - we already have [[Directory:The_Wikipedia_Point_of_View | The Wikipedia Point of View]] here on MWB. The idea was not a forum, but something more like a Wiki, where problems with Wikipedia articles are carefully documented with hard links and references. I started it because permalinks are hard to maintain in a forum. Plus almost any subject in Wikipedia Review has a long history that its proponents understand too well to explain to outsiders, meaning most of it (e.g. Naked short selling) is incomprehensible.

It is a personal effort and will remain so, but there is a need for something that explains in a reasonable and sober way to an outsider what is happening at Wikipedia. Rather like Encyclopedia Dramatica but without the dramatics and, er, the pictures. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 05:58, 10 October 2008 (PDT)

== Peccadildonic Pastimes ==

What I have observed in the Wikisphere (which includes the many miscreantic outcasts on W-R) is an abundance of unproductive venting on issues running to obscure peccadilloes for which the corresponding emotional state is oftimes utterly inscrutable.

If there is an unmet need for peripatetic peccadildonic palavering, perhaps we should think about how to organize that ongoing orbital oration into a more functional process that converges to some insightfully innovative solutions to our cumulative collection of complementary complaints.

Otherwise, all we are doing is pouring ''kvetchup'' on our refried brains.

[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 07:28, 10 October 2008 (PDT)

==Joe the outcast of WR responds to elitist dribble mongers==
Well well, the problem I have is I don't have a fine HARVARD or other ELITE education from some far way and and remote tower of IVORY were they shit bricks of marble.

I am a simple fellow, whose values revolve around basic truths that
you don't LIE, CHEAT or STEAL and the Golden Rule... and you should be held to account for these truths.

The problem is meely-mouth, double talkers, dismiss this, in favor of moral relativism, where every person is a god and no one is bound to "higher moral authority" so evolves a culture of elitism and ends justified the means and a cesspool like wikipeida (where, as in Orwell, black is white, and 1+2=4 and where consensus can generate justification for the lies and bullshit for the sake of "consensus" and "harmony" but in the end, you get a Tyranny of the Majority and the evil you get with it.

For me, wikipeida is full of degenerate and morally bankrupted, liars, plagiarizers, slanderers, and other petite criminals and intellectual bunko artists, which, My CRUDE, UNEDUCATED AND HUMBLE OPINION, makes it a moral imperative that wikipeida is called to task, in the REAL WORLD and HELD TO ACCOUNT, IN THE REAL world and NOT HIDE, LIKE SNIVELING COWARDS, and MEELY MOUTH WORMS, to the destruction of peoples works, ideas and reputations, on the sheer whims of uncontrolled power tripping, basement dwelling pill bugs.
[[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 09:07, 10 October 2008 (PDT)

:Joe, your passion is always inspiring to me. I hope that I haven't given the impression that all contributors to this new project should have impressive degrees or haughty credentials. Rather, all I ask is that the criticisms be formulated in a journalistic style of reporting that would be welcoming to an "outside" observer in the field of journalism or academia. If we go the route of the wiki, in fact, other contributors would even be able to help collaborate with those who are heavy on passion and justice, but light on citation and narrative. I tend to agree that there exists a surplus of sniveling cowards and mealy-mouthed worms on Wikipedia. But, it's our job to make that clear to neutral third parties, without coming off as misguided invective. For example, when JzG plagiarized the content of the original Arch Coal article, it was at least acceptable under the terms of the GFDL. But when, 15 months later, he deleted the original provenance of the article and then (elsewhere) claimed that this was ethically correct, being that his version was supposedly written ''ab initio'', that was a lie, and it was an act of sniveling cowardice, for which he has still not apologized, even though it would be simple to do so. Documenting activity like that will be an important part of helping the uninformed bystander to come to realize the passion and the justice which you wish to convey. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 10:49, 10 October 2008 (PDT)

== Blog ==

I hope that there will be a blog or at the very least an RSS feed. I don't have the time or inclination to participate in a forum like the one described (and I'm definitely not the type of member you're looking for anyway) but I'd be pretty interested in reading the 'highlights' or at least a summary of current good topics or whatever. Just my $0.02 (~£0.01 in real currency). [[User:Naerii|Naerii]] 09:36, 10 October 2008 (PDT)
:An RSS feed can be a good thing for a relatively "paced" format like a blog, but it would be hell on a wiki. MyWikiBiz (just by example), does have a Feedburner e-mail service that can update you daily on "Recent Changes" here. That's sort of useful, if you're really a frequent visitor/user, but fairly annoying if you were a journalist or academic. Here it is, in case you're interested:
::If you would like a daily e-mail notice of what has been created or updated on MyWikiBiz.com, just complete this form.
<embed>
<form style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:3px;text-align:center;" action="http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/emailverify" method="post" target="popupwindow" onsubmit="window.open('http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/emailverifySubmit?feedId=2001427', 'popupwindow', 'scrollbars=yes,width=550,height=520');return true"><p>Enter your email address:</p><p><input type="text" style="width:140px" name="email"/></p><input type="hidden" value="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~e?ffid=2001427" name="url"/><input type="hidden" value="MyWikiBiz" name="title"/><input type="hidden" name="loc" value="en_US"/><input type="submit" value="Subscribe" /><p>Delivered by <a href="http://www.feedburner.com" target="_blank">FeedBurner</a></p></form>
</embed>
:--[[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 10:41, 10 October 2008 (PDT)

==Old-Fangled Email List==

JA: Looking back over my first decade on the Internet — last millennium I still had a life — I think it's safe to say that I had vastly more productive interactions and layed down far more productive content in the process on my old email discussion groups. I know a guy, er, dude, who might be interested in this general topic area and be able to set one up PDQ. Any coherent content that we actually produce could then be munged from the archive into a wiki or whatever. Any takers? [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 11:08, 10 October 2008 (PDT)
:Personally, I find e-mail discussion lists to be a real drag on my already-swamped in-box, and I loathe the idea of "munging" content from one format to another. Seeing what is going on right now in my absence on WR is also leading me to believe that "message board" might not be the way to go. Seriously, I'm thinking wiki may be best, for all of its hated "ownership" issues, it provides the READER the most engaging way to have access to content (and content tangents) all at once. If we establish clear rules on dividing "owned" space versus "communal" space (followed by rigorous "locking" procedures), I think the result will (finally?) be a truly authoritative, reliable, and vibrant reference compendium for all who wish to know "what's wrong with today's Internet". Just my opinion. Still musing. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 12:57, 10 October 2008 (PDT)
::Over on C2.com, the original wiki, they discuss the concepts of a [http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ContentCreationWiki Content Creation Wiki] and a [http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?ContentClassificationWiki Content Classification Wiki]. A Content Creation Wiki might work, so long as the initial participants were careful to educate people on how they work differently from Content Classification Wikis like Wikipedia. For those (like myself, actually), who prefer email, I assume there will be a way to dump every edit into a folder in my gmail account. [[User:Anthony|Anthony]] 13:19, 10 October 2008 (PDT)

== Support ==

Not sure what I can practically do at this point, but I want to chip in with a word of support on this (even though editing a wiki makes my skin crawl a little).

I have a definite split between wanting to read and think seriously about Vacuousness 2.0, and being exasperated by the flood of wikichimps currently using WR as an extra talk page.

I'm also inclined to say that the more exposé sites, the better. Wikitruth.info appeared to get a lot of information out at one time, though it seems to be stalled now.

I plan to be a participant in any new forum that comes out of this discussion.

[[User:Geoff Wilson|Geoff Wilson]] 11:09, 10 October 2008 (PDT)

==When can we start?==
I'm ready to stop posting to Wikipedia Review right now. There are three or four things that I'm pissed off about, and this Greg/Selina conflict is a good straw to break the camels back. You need to set this new forum up right now, like today or tomorrow. Don't make the same mistake as the House of Representatives and fail to pass the bailout measure by the end of the day Monday. Greg, you know my email address if you need any technical support. [[User:Anthony|Anthony]] 13:29, 10 October 2008 (PDT)

Talk:Criticism of crowdsourcing

2008-10-10T20:19:23Z

Anthony: /* Old-Fangled Email List */

Talk:Criticism of crowdsourcing

2008-10-10T20:10:19Z

Anthony: /* Notes & Queries */

==Notes & Queries==

'''JA:''' I guess my first criticism would be a worry about the name "crowdsourcing". It clangs me wrong somehow. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 12:12, 8 October 2008 (PDT)

'''NR:''' My thoughts: Do I even have real-world credentials? Now there's a problem. Why not have a message board ''and'' a wiki? There are good and bad points to having either one.

'''NR:''' On the thought of what domain name to use: I think <s>MimboJimbo.com</s> (no, that is a very bad idea) something that implies what we're doing (Wiki..something) would be suitable. (Well OK taking the piss out of Jimbo, we can do that in other ways without using the domain name to do it, it also doesn't seem professional, why I thought that was a good idea, I'll never know) — [[User:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''Nathan'''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''talk'''</span>]])</sup> <sub>/ <em>19:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)</em></sub>

'''JA:''' I've grown weary of fixating on (1) Wikipedia (2) Wikipedia Personae. Yes, most of our concrete data and hard experience comes from those sources — though I did see the very same dynamics in Citizendium despite the one bug fix that Sanger tried to implement — but we need to view that data and experience as cases under generic concepts, and focus on the genus not the individuals. So "MimboJimbo" would probably lead us down the wrong path. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 12:30, 8 October 2008 (PDT)

'''PW:''' I'm afraid that I really don't like "MimboJimbo" either, as it gives a rather "Monty Python" impression and is also inherently negative. If we want to be taken seriously, we've got to have a neutral name which doesn't imply a result (we already know that the result is going to be negative, but we don't need to come out and say that...Best to let people read the evidence and make their own minds up). So, the actual name of the site should be neutral, rather scientific, yet precise. I've suggested "WikiAnalysis" (first choice) and "WikiReader" (second choice)...However, there must be other possibilities.

'''BK:''' There is a professor at Kansas State University who does ethnographic studies of cyberspace cultures. One of his classes focused on the phenomenon of YouTube. He recently gave a [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPAO-lZ4_hU presentation of his work] at the Library of Congress. It's worth watching, mainly for the example of his kind of scholarship. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 20:15, 9 October 2008 (PDT)

:First seven minutes are very engaging. I'm left with the question, "where did Wikipedia make the mistaken turns away from this magical sense of joyful empowerment?" I'll continue later. Bed time now. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 20:33, 9 October 2008 (PDT)

::WP made the same mistake that humankind made back in the days of Hammurabi. They adopted a lamentably idiotic community regulatory mechanism. They adopted a regulatory mechanism ideally suited to games or drama, but ill-suited to an academic enterprise. There really isn't any excuse for it. It was a fundamental failure of leadership. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 21:32, 9 October 2008 (PDT)

'''DT:''' Have you reserved any .org or .info domains, in case the project turns into a noncommercial informational resource rather than a commercial entity? [[User:Dtobias|Dtobias]] 20:44, 9 October 2008 (PDT)

'''AJD:''' Personally I'd favor a forum with a more positive focus. But if you're going to stick with the negative, what exactly is it that you're criticizing? Criticism of "unethical, unprofessional practices of information management on the Internet" seems too broad. Maybe limit it to so called "user-generated" content on the Internet? [[User:Anthony|Anthony]] 13:10, 10 October 2008 (PDT)

==Consider the Crowdsource==

'''GK:''' The only ready synonym for "crowdsourcing" that comes to my mind is "user-generated content", or "Web 2.0". Nathan, you have credentials, in that you have a location, a job, and schooling, which is really all I'm looking for. I think MimboJimbo is way off... I was just mentioning which domains I actually hold claim to. Really, I'm thinking that the domain should be something simple and descriptive (but still available), along the lines of "critiquesofthecrowd.com". -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 13:37, 8 October 2008 (PDT)

'''JA:''' Okay, let's talk about that. I probably need to start by trying to articulate my inklings, irklings, or reservations about the term.
* When I hear "crowdsource" it calls to mind one of the prime directives of critical thinking, to wit, "Consider The Source!"
** That leads me to ask:
*** Is the crowd the source?
*** If we mean that the crowd is the source, is that a Good, a Bad, or an Indifferent thing?
'''JA:''' That's about as far as I get for now. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 13:52, 8 October 2008 (PDT)

'''PW:''' The whole idea of "crowd sourcing" as it relates to Wikis is a fallacy. First of all, not everyone has access to a computer and of those that do, not everyone is necessarily able to forcibly vehicle their point of view effectively against the "Voice of the Crowd". The demographics of Wikipedia already show the inherent problems with calling what is produced "the sum of all human knowledge" as there are clearly elements of the subset of humans who are not present in the demographics of Wikipedia. So, what is happening in Web 2.0 is clearly not "crowd" sourcing, but the re-enforcement of the idea that "we are those who define reality". It's a celebration of "Us", which implies a "them" and the division that this implies. The WP:En experience serves very well as a test case for this hypothesis. So, perhaps the "crowd sourcing" angle is too limitative and not the entire phenomenon?

'''NR:''' I actually do not have two of the things that you mention (I've expanded on this via e-mail). Anyway, that's a better idea for a domain name. It's more descriptive in terms of what the site would actually do. I don't know what I was thinking, really. I also agree, it's probably not possible (or prudent) to use "Wikipedia" as part of the domain name. — [[User:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''Nathan'''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''talk'''</span>]])</sup> <sub>/ <em>22:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)</em></sub>

'''PW:''' Nathan, I don't think that this has to be so complicated. We can trace you to a real person and it's obvious that you are indeed that person. That's fine by me.

'''NR:''' Okay, that works then. — [[User:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''Nathan'''</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Nathan|<span style="color:#3971DE">'''talk'''</span>]])</sup> <sub>/ <em>17:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)</em></sub>

==Suggest we move to the "article"==

'''GK:''' Might I suggest that we move from "thoughtful conversation mode" here on the Discussion page, over to the wiki-mode "Article" page. Let's craft a collection of principles and ideas that we all can live with, and once we get to that point, we can decide on exactly how to execute. If we start to see "edit wars" on the Article page, even among us friends, then that will itself be an indicator that our ideas are not on a level-set.

'''JA:''' For reasons I will tell you about off-line, my mind and time are a bit scattered right now, and I probably won't be up to careful analysis or sustained discussion for another week or so. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 07:07, 9 October 2008 (PDT)

'''GK:''' We'll miss you, but we fully understand, Jon. This is only "web kvetching", you know, and should be toward the bottom of all our priorities!

==A word from Joe==

WR, in my humble opinion, is just extension of the WP thought police and arbcom, and such has lost sight of it's mission. WR is now, just an apologist for WP and a haven for the miscretin wikipeidiot admins and other power drunk punks, who's respect for others and rule of law is non existent. WP is a Canker Sore on the internet and, in my simple opinion, can not ever be reformed. Wikipedia must be dismantled, it's tax exempt status, revoked and the servers, which houses WP purge of the stinking Cancerous mess of wikipeida and it's lies, mis-information, and virtual altar to the tin god Jimbo, the magnificent.[[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 22:52, 9 October 2008 (PDT)

== A word from Blissyu2 ==

My main criticism of Wikipedia is now and has always been the ability for Wikipedia to change truth on important issues. On many very important issues there are multiple viewpoints that must be expressed in order to get an accurate perspective, and it is impossible for anyone to speak or write about them without major bias. Trying to remove the bias leads to removing the factual aspects of the case. Because Wikipedia aims for Neutral Point of View, they forbid experts to comment on topics, which leads to a lot of idiots writing dumb articles. On top of that, experts do secretly edit articles, and secretly control them, to pervert the article. What really should happen is that articles are owned by experts. If an article cannot be written by just one person, then multiple competing articles should exist to reflect all biases. Biases are an important part of historical revelation. I have written many times, and proven pretty conclusively I think, that Wikipedia's article on the Port Arthur massacre, a very important event in Australian history, and even moreso to myself personally, is written horrifically inaccurately. Not only that, but the majority of people who have contributed to it have tried to present accurate information, but have been forbidden from doing so. Because of Wikipedia's inaccurate display of that incident, the generally accepted truth of that issue has changed dramatically, with today as many as 20% of people accepting Wikipedia's version of events, as opposed to less than 5% 5 years ago. On top of that, when Thebainer added the "Conspiracy theories" section, listing some of the least well known theories, and only mentioning their conclusions, rather than the facts that they are based on, combined with saying why they are not believed, he introduced what is called "disinformation". It pretends that these are the only alternatives, when in reality they are not the only alternatives, and indeed represent a minority view even smaller than the minority view presented by Wikipedia.

Wikipedia Review was a good concept, and I think that we can see that in most respects it worked well. The main failure, in my opinion, is in a lack of loyalty. Igor Alexander, the founder of the site, was banned from his own site when we moved. On top of that, then we had all of the original founders, except for Selina, banned from the site, in addition to more than half of the people who have ever held administrator status. Indeed, we have only had perhaps 5 or 6 people ever banned that were NOT administrators or people with power on the site. This reeks of a power struggle, and is quite frankly not on. This kind of thing shouldn't exist anywhere. Perhaps more could have been done to try to stop it, but it is too late now, and I felt like I couldn't do anything more at the time.

Furthermore, a second major problem is that Wikipedia Review began to focus more on popularity and less on integrity. Ever since that director came on (Col Scott, I forget his real name), Wikipedia Review has focussed on what would make them look good rather than what was the right thing to do. For ages we were accused of doing the wrong thing, but then we started to actually do it.

Poetlister should never have been promoted, because Poetlister was never regular enough to warrant it. Poetlister was also the subject of a criticism, hence a poor choice as administrator. Guy perhaps should have been promoted, but they should not have considered both at once, since they were speaking with one voice. Whether they were separate people or not, it is not on.

I do not think that using real names is the answer. That was tried on Citizendium, and it doesn't really make things any better. In the end, if you use your real name on the internet, it just means that the anonymous millions will have more things to smear your name with. When you are talking about criticism and such, you are putting your name out there, and it is dangerous to list your real name.

Besides which, I have known many incidences when people have used what they claimed were their real names, but they actually weren't. It doesn't actually help that situation all that much. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 04:40, 10 October 2008 (PDT)

== [[Directory:The_Wikipedia_Point_of_View | The Wikipedia Point of View]] ==

Just to add my two pennies - we already have [[Directory:The_Wikipedia_Point_of_View | The Wikipedia Point of View]] here on MWB. The idea was not a forum, but something more like a Wiki, where problems with Wikipedia articles are carefully documented with hard links and references. I started it because permalinks are hard to maintain in a forum. Plus almost any subject in Wikipedia Review has a long history that its proponents understand too well to explain to outsiders, meaning most of it (e.g. Naked short selling) is incomprehensible.

It is a personal effort and will remain so, but there is a need for something that explains in a reasonable and sober way to an outsider what is happening at Wikipedia. Rather like Encyclopedia Dramatica but without the dramatics and, er, the pictures. [[User:Ockham|Ockham]] 05:58, 10 October 2008 (PDT)

== Peccadildonic Pastimes ==

What I have observed in the Wikisphere (which includes the many miscreantic outcasts on W-R) is an abundance of unproductive venting on issues running to obscure peccadilloes for which the corresponding emotional state is oftimes utterly inscrutable.

If there is an unmet need for peripatetic peccadildonic palavering, perhaps we should think about how to organize that ongoing orbital oration into a more functional process that converges to some insightfully innovative solutions to our cumulative collection of complementary complaints.

Otherwise, all we are doing is pouring ''kvetchup'' on our refried brains.

[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 07:28, 10 October 2008 (PDT)

==Joe the outcast of WR responds to elitist dribble mongers==
Well well, the problem I have is I don't have a fine HARVARD or other ELITE education from some far way and and remote tower of IVORY were they shit bricks of marble.

I am a simple fellow, whose values revolve around basic truths that
you don't LIE, CHEAT or STEAL and the Golden Rule... and you should be held to account for these truths.

The problem is meely-mouth, double talkers, dismiss this, in favor of moral relativism, where every person is a god and no one is bound to "higher moral authority" so evolves a culture of elitism and ends justified the means and a cesspool like wikipeida (where, as in Orwell, black is white, and 1+2=4 and where consensus can generate justification for the lies and bullshit for the sake of "consensus" and "harmony" but in the end, you get a Tyranny of the Majority and the evil you get with it.

For me, wikipeida is full of degenerate and morally bankrupted, liars, plagiarizers, slanderers, and other petite criminals and intellectual bunko artists, which, My CRUDE, UNEDUCATED AND HUMBLE OPINION, makes it a moral imperative that wikipeida is called to task, in the REAL WORLD and HELD TO ACCOUNT, IN THE REAL world and NOT HIDE, LIKE SNIVELING COWARDS, and MEELY MOUTH WORMS, to the destruction of peoples works, ideas and reputations, on the sheer whims of uncontrolled power tripping, basement dwelling pill bugs.
[[User:Joehazelton|Joehazelton]] 09:07, 10 October 2008 (PDT)

:Joe, your passion is always inspiring to me. I hope that I haven't given the impression that all contributors to this new project should have impressive degrees or haughty credentials. Rather, all I ask is that the criticisms be formulated in a journalistic style of reporting that would be welcoming to an "outside" observer in the field of journalism or academia. If we go the route of the wiki, in fact, other contributors would even be able to help collaborate with those who are heavy on passion and justice, but light on citation and narrative. I tend to agree that there exists a surplus of sniveling cowards and mealy-mouthed worms on Wikipedia. But, it's our job to make that clear to neutral third parties, without coming off as misguided invective. For example, when JzG plagiarized the content of the original Arch Coal article, it was at least acceptable under the terms of the GFDL. But when, 15 months later, he deleted the original provenance of the article and then (elsewhere) claimed that this was ethically correct, being that his version was supposedly written ''ab initio'', that was a lie, and it was an act of sniveling cowardice, for which he has still not apologized, even though it would be simple to do so. Documenting activity like that will be an important part of helping the uninformed bystander to come to realize the passion and the justice which you wish to convey. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 10:49, 10 October 2008 (PDT)

== Blog ==

I hope that there will be a blog or at the very least an RSS feed. I don't have the time or inclination to participate in a forum like the one described (and I'm definitely not the type of member you're looking for anyway) but I'd be pretty interested in reading the 'highlights' or at least a summary of current good topics or whatever. Just my $0.02 (~£0.01 in real currency). [[User:Naerii|Naerii]] 09:36, 10 October 2008 (PDT)
:An RSS feed can be a good thing for a relatively "paced" format like a blog, but it would be hell on a wiki. MyWikiBiz (just by example), does have a Feedburner e-mail service that can update you daily on "Recent Changes" here. That's sort of useful, if you're really a frequent visitor/user, but fairly annoying if you were a journalist or academic. Here it is, in case you're interested:
::If you would like a daily e-mail notice of what has been created or updated on MyWikiBiz.com, just complete this form.
<embed>
<form style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:3px;text-align:center;" action="http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/emailverify" method="post" target="popupwindow" onsubmit="window.open('http://www.feedburner.com/fb/a/emailverifySubmit?feedId=2001427', 'popupwindow', 'scrollbars=yes,width=550,height=520');return true"><p>Enter your email address:</p><p><input type="text" style="width:140px" name="email"/></p><input type="hidden" value="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~e?ffid=2001427" name="url"/><input type="hidden" value="MyWikiBiz" name="title"/><input type="hidden" name="loc" value="en_US"/><input type="submit" value="Subscribe" /><p>Delivered by <a href="http://www.feedburner.com" target="_blank">FeedBurner</a></p></form>
</embed>
:--[[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 10:41, 10 October 2008 (PDT)

==Old-Fangled Email List==

JA: Looking back over my first decade on the Internet — last millennium I still had a life — I think it's safe to say that I had vastly more productive interactions and layed down far more productive content in the process on my old email discussion groups. I know a guy, er, dude, who might be interested in this general topic area and be able to set one up PDQ. Any coherent content that we actually produce could then be munged from the archive into a wiki or whatever. Any takers? [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 11:08, 10 October 2008 (PDT)
:Personally, I find e-mail discussion lists to be a real drag on my already-swamped in-box, and I loathe the idea of "munging" content from one format to another. Seeing what is going on right now in my absence on WR is also leading me to believe that "message board" might not be the way to go. Seriously, I'm thinking wiki may be best, for all of its hated "ownership" issues, it provides the READER the most engaging way to have access to content (and content tangents) all at once. If we establish clear rules on dividing "owned" space versus "communal" space (followed by rigorous "locking" procedures), I think the result will (finally?) be a truly authoritative, reliable, and vibrant reference compendium for all who wish to know "what's wrong with today's Internet". Just my opinion. Still musing. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 12:57, 10 October 2008 (PDT)

== Support ==

Not sure what I can practically do at this point, but I want to chip in with a word of support on this (even though editing a wiki makes my skin crawl a little).

I have a definite split between wanting to read and think seriously about Vacuousness 2.0, and being exasperated by the flood of wikichimps currently using WR as an extra talk page.

I'm also inclined to say that the more exposé sites, the better. Wikitruth.info appeared to get a lot of information out at one time, though it seems to be stalled now.

I plan to be a participant in any new forum that comes out of this discussion.

[[User:Geoff Wilson|Geoff Wilson]] 11:09, 10 October 2008 (PDT)

Criticism of crowdsourcing

2008-10-10T19:44:36Z

Anthony: /* Name ideas */

Consider that [http://www.wikipediareview.com Wikipedia Review] is now, according to a number of participants there, suffering from various problems of anonymous management and community composition (an influx of Wikipedia apologists). Now may be an opportune time to '''establish a new forum for research and discussion''' of similar matters as posed by Wikipedia Review, but with various improvements.

Let this page serve as a discussion place for this new possibility.

==Founding principles==

# Our forum will respectfully feature thoughtful, substantiated, objective criticism of the problems presented by unethical, unprofessional practices of information management on the Internet. Participants will use ethical journalistic practice in order to describe documented situations involving these issues. Fueling of "drama" and interpersonal conflicts will be discouraged where possible. However, it may be necessary to discuss individual participants on particular websites in specific situations, such as to exemplify "conflict of interest" problems.
# Both the ownership and administrative management of the new forum shall all be self-identifying persons with legitimate biographies that map to real-world authenticity.
# The target audience of the forum will be journalists who publish and broadcast in the areas of technology and information, academics whose research touches these subjects, and the general public. Some of those in the targeted audience will not have an intimate understanding of the inner workings and jargon of subject site policies (e.g., Wikipedia has an extremely complex rule set), so our forum will attempt to address such intricacies by spelling them out in layman's terms.
# Topical discussions will not be limited to Wikipedia. Other Internet sites for examination may include Google Knol, Citizendium, Encyclopedia Britannica, Wikia, Biographicon, Veropedia, Encyclopedia Dramatica, etc. We can discuss all matter of social, political, commercial, and academic consequences of any of the following:
#* User-generated content
#* Free licenses, the "Free culture movement", and copyright violations
#* Wikis
#* Section 230 considerations
#* Anonymity and privacy on the Internet
# Participants in the discussion may elect to do so from behind a pseudonymous cloak, but they will be advised that their opinions and status as participants shall carry less "cachet" (clout, gravitas, etc.) than those who self-identify and participate transparently.

==Format==
Which format would be most suitable for this new forum? Would it be possible to have both formats? If so, what would be more appropriate to have as the site's major format?

===Message board===
:'''Pros'''
::Fluid discussions between members
::More directly participative than a wiki, as each party may express their side without having to include the concepts already presented.
:'''Cons'''
::Derailment of threads
::Appears amateur
::More likely to cause conflict, especially between "problem" users

===Wiki===
:'''Pros'''
::Output is inherently more "polished" and "reasoned" than a message board
::The content is more immediately usable for journalists, academics and media professionals.
:'''Cons'''
::Discussion between parties gets lost in "consensus" of page
::Using the same format as that of the subject that one is trying to describe may not be a valid way of producing analysis, especially if the same core principles (ie NPOV, "consensus") are used. It's perhaps important to "think outside the of box".

===A combination of Message Board/Wiki===
:'''Pros'''
::Is already the "setup" at the WR, with the message board and the "blog". That part of the WR model seems to work quite well.
::Separation of proven information made by identified editors and hypothesis/opinion made by either known editors or pseudonyms might prove to be practical and also prudent from a legal standpoint. The information contained on the Wiki should be sourced, provable and thoroughly investigated before it is posted. This would seem to indicate that only known editors should be allowed to have access to that section. If access to the "wiki" is reserved for named individuals, then the pseudonyms can still provide information or evidence on the message board, which can later be sourced and investigated. This allows separation of "theories" and "hypothesis'" from actual sourced and investigated pieces of information. This might also be useful from a legal standpoint if a disclaimer is given on the message board concerning the validity of statements made there, as opposed to the wiki. '''If this possibility seems to be interesting, perhaps this should be split off into another section?'''
:'''Cons'''
::Some information may get lost in the process of sifting through the posts made to the message board.
::Using a separate system with the message board being the only area accessible to pseudonymous contributors might make the area attractive to vandals and other attention-seeking individuals.

==Name ideas==
What might we call this site?
:Criticism of Crowdsourcing
:Wrongs of the Internet
:Rethinking Free Culture
:Wikipedia Analysis (attn: the term "Wikipedia" is trademarked. Can we use this name? ) or WikiAnalysis
:WikiReader (Americans will remember the "Weekly Reader" from Grade school...although this might not work for an international audience)
:Center for Internet Criticism
:Internet Ethics Report
:Internet Concerns
:The Folly of Crowds
:CyberCulture Review

One of the reasons that "The Wikipedia Review" has been so successful as a concept is that the name is precise, yet neutral. A successful name will most likely have a neutral, objective(perhaps scientific), element which will not necessarily be seen as being negative towards the subject. It is perhaps more effective to try to remain objective in our criticism, as to let the objective evidence speak for itself.

Conversely, even a forum with a lousy name like "Wikback.com" was quite successful for the brief time before its owner began to censor content in haphazard and unethical ways.

==Reserved domain names==
*WikipediaMustDie.com
*GregoryKohs.com
*MimboJimbo.com
*MyWikiBiz.com