Criticism of crowdsourcing - Revision history

MyWikiBiz: /* Announcement */ Adding funny image

2008-11-10T19:08:31Z

Announcement: Adding funny image

2008-10-27T14:23:48Z

Name ideas: Desperately Seeking Sanity

2008-10-27T13:58:53Z

Name ideas: The Wales Treat Journal

2008-10-18T19:36:16Z

Name ideas

2008-10-18T14:04:02Z

Name Ideas: Blows Against The E-Pyre

2008-10-18T12:50:29Z

Mailing list

2008-10-18T12:48:34Z

Name ideas

2008-10-18T12:46:15Z

Mailing list

2008-10-13T06:52:34Z

Name ideas

2008-10-13T04:16:10Z

Wiki: Strikethrough

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 ==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:
+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:[[Image:Social Media Sockpuppets.jpg|thumb|350px|right|Let's move away from this form of governance.]]
 *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.

@@ Line 102: / Line 102: @@
 * CyberCulture Review
 * Leaving Pseudopia
 * blows against the e-pyre
 * crapsourcing.con

@@ Line 91: / Line 91: @@
 What might we call this site?
-: Criticism of Crowdsourcing
+* Criticism of Crowdsourcing
-: Wrongs of the Internet
+* Wrongs of the Internet
-: Rethinking Free Culture
+* Rethinking Free Culture
-: Wikipedia Analysis (attn: the term "Wikipedia" is trademarked.  Can we use this name?  ) or WikiAnalysis
+* 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 &hellip; although this might not work for an international audience)
+* WikiReader (Americans will remember the "Weekly Reader" from Grade school &hellip; although this might not work for an international audience)
-: Center for Internet Criticism
+* Center for Internet Criticism
-: Internet Ethics Report
+* Internet Ethics Report
-: Internet Concerns
+* Internet Concerns
-: The Folly of Crowds
+* The Folly of Crowds
-: CyberCulture Review
+* CyberCulture Review
-: Leaving Pseudopia
+* Leaving Pseudopia
-: blows against the e-pyre
+* blows against the e-pyre
 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.

@@ Line 101: / Line 101: @@
 : The Folly of Crowds
 : CyberCulture Review
-: Blows Against The E-Pyre
+: Leaving Pseudopia
 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.

@@ Line 101: / Line 101: @@
 : 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.

@@ Line 78: / Line 78: @@
 : '''Pros'''
 :: Wide reach for participation.
-:: If the list subscribes to a newsreader service like [http://www.gmane.org/ Gmane], then members can turn off their email delivery and use the newsreader instead.  That way, readers download only the headers into their reader boxes, picking and choosing which posts they wish to read.  Readers can use web interface for responding, and the list owner can set whether responses are allowed from anyone or just members only.  Utilities are provided for blocking spammers and hecklers.
+:: If the list subscribes to a newsreader service like [http://www.gmane.org/ Gmane], then members can turn off their email delivery and use the newsreader instead.  That way, readers download only the headers into their reader boxes, picking and choosing which posts they wish to read.  Readers can use the web interface to interact, and the list owner can set whether responses are allowed from anyone or just members only.  Utilities are provided for blocking spammers and hecklers.
 :'''Cons'''

@@ Line 76: / Line 76: @@
 ===Mailing list===
-:'''Pros'''
+: '''Pros'''
-::Wide reach for participation
+:: Wide reach for participation.
 :'''Cons'''
 ::Moderating rules could be challenging

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:52, 13 October 2008
Line 112:		Line 112:

	:::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)		:::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)
		+
		+	:::I quite like Centre for Internet Criticism. [[User:Angela Kennedy\|Angela Kennedy]] 23:52, 12 October 2008 (PDT)

	==Reserved domain names==		==Reserved domain names==

@@ Line 48: / Line 48: @@
 ::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)
+::<s>I think this is the way I'm leaning, but I reserve the right to change my mind.</s> -- [[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