Bureaucrats, Check users, Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Administrators, vuser
9,362
edits
Changes
Criticism of crowdsourcing (view source)
Revision as of 19:08, 10 November 2008
, 19:08, 10 November 2008→Announcement: Adding funny image
Let this page serve as a discussion place for this new possibility.
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:[[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.
*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==
==Founding principles==
::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".
::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?'''
:'''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
::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
===Mailing list===
===Mailing list===
:'''Pros'''
: '''Pros'''
::Wide reach for participation
:: 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 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'''
:'''Cons'''
::Moderating rules could be challenging
::Moderating rules could be challenging
What might we call this site?
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
* Leaving Pseudopia
* Desperately Seeking Sanity
* blows against the e-pyre
* crapsourcing.con
* The Wales Street Journal
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.
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.
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)
:::I quite like Centre for Internet Criticism. [[User:Angela Kennedy|Angela Kennedy]] 23:52, 12 October 2008 (PDT)
==Reserved domain names==
==Reserved domain names==
*MimboJimbo.com
*MimboJimbo.com
*MyWikiBiz.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)