67
edits
Changes
Talk:Criticism of crowdsourcing (view source)
Revision as of 18:16, 12 October 2008
, 18:16, 12 October 2008→Now Is The Wiki Of Our Discontent: Moulton's analysis of the "wrongness" in the architecture of WMF-sponsored projects.
JA: That is one of the reasons why I continue to have reservations about taking the concepts of "crowdsourcing" and "user-generated content" as a basis for our critique of Wikioid phenomena. Doing that only plays into the dodge of content-blindness (analogous to snow-blindness) that keeps so many would-be critics running around in circles of futility until they get frostbyte and die in the drifts. So let's watch out for that. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 09:22, 12 October 2008 (PDT)
JA: That is one of the reasons why I continue to have reservations about taking the concepts of "crowdsourcing" and "user-generated content" as a basis for our critique of Wikioid phenomena. Doing that only plays into the dodge of content-blindness (analogous to snow-blindness) that keeps so many would-be critics running around in circles of futility until they get frostbyte and die in the drifts. So let's watch out for that. [[User:Jon Awbrey|Jon Awbrey]] 09:22, 12 October 2008 (PDT)
BK: To my mind, the architectural error in WMF-sponsored projects is that Jimbo adopted an inappropriate regulatory mechanism for an educational enterprise. Jimbo adopted and maladapted the Hammurabic Method of Social Regulation which (I claim) is a monumental and tragic error. The primary tool of governance (blocking and banning) corresponds to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Attainder Bill of Attainder] — a corrosive, ill-conceived, and ill-advised regulatory device. It was [http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton#Midwifing_Epiphanies_Since_the_Dawn_of_Consciousness problematic when Hammurabi defined] it some 3750 years ago, and it remains problematic today. Whoever came up with that foolish idea should go jump in the lake. —[[User:Moulton|Moulton]] 11:16, 12 October 2008 (PDT)