15
edits
Changes
MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Wednesday July 03, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to searchTalk:Criticism of crowdsourcing (view source)
Revision as of 08:51, 9 October 2008
, 08:51, 9 October 2008→Notes & Queries
'''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)
'''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==
==Consider the Crowdsource==
