MyWikiBiz - User contributions [en]

Criticism of crowdsourcing

2008-10-12T19:25:35Z

Paul Wehage: /* 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.

==Announcement==
As the owner of this website, and as the primary agent for a new forum for research and discussion of information management on the Internet, I would like to announce that I am about 90% resolved to move forward in the following way:
*The new forum will begin as a closed, "team edited" blog, open to ''comment'' by the general public. One new blog post will appear every Monday. Comments may be censored only by a majority vote of the management.
*I will invite four other real-name people to form a set of '''Five Founders'''. Each of these men or women will have the opportunity to opt into or out of legal ''ownership'' of the domain, through a short partnership contract.
*Each Founder will be responsible for drafting one blog post, on a rotating basis, such that '''Founder A''' will write the Week 1 post, '''Founder B''' will write the Week 2 post, and so on. The first draft of the post will be submitted on Thursdays, and the rest of the Founders may touch up and improve copy on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday; but the Monday publication will carry the byline of the drafting author/Founder.
*Each Founder will be allowed one "rain check" per year (to miss one every-five-weeks blog posting), but a second missed posting will result in the Founder losing contractual partnership.
*Every three months, the Founders will discuss and vote on the addition of new members ('''New Partners''') who will be inserted into the rotating blog production cycle. After a quarterly probation period, they will also be given the opportunity to opt into or out of legal ''ownership'' of the domain.
*In this way, the body of authors will grow, and the duty cycle of each member will decrease over time. If the duty cycle becomes too sporadic for the partners' taste, then we could vote to double the frequency of the blog, with new posts being published on Mondays ''and'' Thursdays.
At this time, I would like interested Founder candidates to reach out to me by private e-mail (ResearchBiz <nowiki><at></nowiki> gmail.com). As stated above, real-names matching to authenticated bios will be required, at least to be shared within the private partnership contract, but not necessarily to the public at large. Recommendations for other Founders are welcome, as well. I urge ''private'' correspondence on this founding process, as I don't want this site to turn into a public discussion of real-name qualities and drawbacks. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 06:10, 12 October 2008 (PDT) ([[Directory:Gregory J. Kohs|Gregory Kohs]])

==Founding principles==

# Our forum will respectfully feature thoughtful, substantiated, objective criticism of unethical, unprofessional characteristics of certain types of information management on the Internet. Participants will use ethical journalistic practice and demeanor 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 or to scrutinize the character of a website's leadership.
# 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
:'''Do you vote for this?'''

===Wiki===
:'''Pros'''
::Output is inherently more "polished" and "reasoned" than a message board
::There is a clear division between content and discussion thereof.
::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".
:'''Do you vote for this?'''
::I think this is the way I'm leaning, but I reserve the right to change my mind. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 20:59, 10 October 2008 (PDT)
::I do. A wiki can work perfectly well if participation is restricted and the management exercises diligence over its contents. -- Signed by [[User:Proabivouac]]00:58, October 11, 2008

===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.
:'''Do you vote for this?'''

::Absolutely this is the way to go, although, as stated elsewhere, I think that a wiki can only work properly with controlled articles, where individual articles are controlled by someone who is an expert on the topic. Closed membership of everything is essential too. Invite only or approved by existing members/moderators [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 20:04, 11 October 2008 (PDT)

===Blog, with "closed" team of editors===
:'''Pros'''
::Continuity and quality of message
::"Outsiders" can participate through lively Comment fields
:'''Cons'''
::Seems "closed" to collaboration
::Limited set of creative thoughts and opinions
::Linear display arranged by post date
:'''Do you vote for this?'''
::Suddenly leaning a lot more toward this, at least as a fresh beginning. If a wiki is spawned later in the process, that's fine, too. -- [[User:MyWikiBiz|MyWikiBiz]] 08:57, 11 October 2008 (PDT)
:::Given recent developments and some other factors, I'm inclined to go this way right now as well.[[User:Paul Wehage|Paul Wehage]] 16:25, 11 October 2008 (PDT)
::I think that a blog works too. Indeed, I think that all 3 of wiki, blog and forum can work in coordination happily. A blog can act like news. Maybe even a mailing list too to talk about important issues. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 20:06, 11 October 2008 (PDT)

===Mailing list===
:'''Pros'''
::Wide reach for participation
:'''Cons'''
::Moderating rules could be challenging
::Is the content history fully searchable?
::Very limited format possibilities
::Fills up participants' inboxes
:'''Do you vote for this?'''
::As stated above, "all of the above" works well. If a mailing list was used simply as a daily or even weekly summary of what has happened, it could work well. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 20:11, 11 October 2008 (PDT)

==Name ideas==

What might we call this site?
: Web Of Lies
: Collective Ignorance
: 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.

'''Comments on suggested names:'''
: It doesn't really matter what name you choose, as people will eventually get used to it. Criticism of Crowdsourcing, the name of this article, seems good enough to me. Otherwise, WikiReader is probably a good one. I had liked WikipediaCritics too, but that domain name is now taken. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 22:57, 11 October 2008 (PDT)

::I disagree on the importance and significance of nomenclature. Names should be as succinct, unambiguous, descriptive, distinctive, and memorable as possible so that people can reliably recognize the name and easily find the proper referent to it. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 06:16, 12 October 2008 (PDT)

:::I'm warming up to "Internet Ethics Report" which I think sums it up pretty well. [[User:Paul Wehage|Paul Wehage]] 12:25, 12 October 2008 (PDT)

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

'''Comments on domain names:'''

:Ideally, I think that a domain name that is related to whatever is the chosen name would be ideal. The domain name can be shortened in some ways though. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 23:35, 11 October 2008 (PDT)

Criticism of crowdsourcing

2008-10-11T23:25:35Z

Paul Wehage: /* Blog, with "closed" team of editors */

Criticism of crowdsourcing

2008-10-09T14:11:37Z

Paul Wehage: /* A combination of Message Board/Wiki */

Criticism of crowdsourcing

2008-10-09T14:06:41Z

Paul Wehage: /* A combination of Message Board/Wiki */

Criticism of crowdsourcing

2008-10-09T14:04:23Z

Paul Wehage: /* Format */ adding suggestion of a combination of both blog and wiki, suggesting that the wiki be confined to identified users

Talk:Criticism of crowdsourcing

2008-10-09T09:02:47Z

Paul Wehage: /* Consider the Crowdsource */

==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|'''Nathan''']] ([[User talk:Nathan|'''talk''']]) / 19:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

'''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.

==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|'''Nathan''']] ([[User talk:Nathan|'''talk''']]) / 22:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

'''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.

Talk:Criticism of crowdsourcing

2008-10-09T09:00:00Z

Paul Wehage: /* Consider the Crowdsource */

Talk:Criticism of crowdsourcing

2008-10-09T08:59:09Z

Paul Wehage: /* Consider the Crowdsource */

==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|'''Nathan''']] ([[User talk:Nathan|'''talk''']]) / 19:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

'''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.

==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|'''Nathan''']] ([[User talk:Nathan|'''talk''']]) / 22:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Criticism of crowdsourcing

2008-10-09T08:51:00Z

Paul Wehage: /* 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 MimboJimbo.com would be suitable. — [[User:Nathan|'''Nathan''']] ([[User talk:Nathan|'''talk''']]) / 19:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

'''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.

==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)

'''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|'''Nathan''']] ([[User talk:Nathan|'''talk''']]) / 22:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of crowdsourcing

2008-10-09T08:43:50Z

Paul Wehage: /* Name ideas */ precision

Criticism of crowdsourcing

2008-10-09T08:42:52Z

Paul Wehage: /* Founding principles */ Adding a target audience and ideas about how ideal content might be described

Criticism of crowdsourcing

2008-10-09T08:31:40Z

Paul Wehage: /* Wiki */ changing wording to be more precise and neutral

Criticism of crowdsourcing

2008-10-09T08:28:27Z

Paul Wehage: /* Name ideas */ adding some thoughts and name ideas

Criticism of crowdsourcing

2008-10-09T08:19:55Z

Paul Wehage: /* Format */ adding some ideas etc

Criticism of crowdsourcing

2008-10-09T08:12:37Z

Paul Wehage: /* Founding principles */ adding a few points that I'd like to see discussed as major issues