Changes

MyWikiBiz, Author Your Legacy — Sunday April 28, 2024
Jump to navigationJump to search

Criticism of crowdsourcing (view source)

Revision as of 19:08, 10 November 2008

4,095 bytes added ,  19:08, 10 November 2008
→‎Announcement: Adding funny image
Line 2: Line 2:     
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==
Line 38: 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".
 
::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
−
::A wiki can work, and indeed I think that both wiki and forum should exist together.  There are various problems with a wiki, however, including the various elements (at least with MediaWiki) that encourage stalking.  Wikis should have owned articles, such that each individual article is controlled by 1 person with an expertise in the subject matter, then others assist with any minor fixes in the article.  Forget about trying to have neutrality, as neutrality, and bias, are in the eye of the beholder.  Instead work towards accuracy.  The problem with wikis, ultimately, is control, and this can easily be remedied.  But a wiki can only show the final product, it cannot easily show how that final product was discovered.  That is what the forum is for. [[User:Blissyu2|Blissyu2]] 20:02, 11 October 2008 (PDT)
      
===Combination of Message Board/Wiki===
 
===Combination of Message Board/Wiki===
Line 64: Line 73:  
::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)
 
::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)
 
:::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===
 
===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
Line 74: Line 86:  
::Fills up participants' inboxes
 
::Fills up participants' inboxes
 
:'''Do you vote for this?'''
 
:'''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==
 
==Name ideas==
    
What might we call this site?
 
What might we call this site?
−
: Web Of Lies
+
* Criticism of Crowdsourcing
−
: Collective Ignorance
+
* Wrongs of the Internet
−
: Criticism of Crowdsourcing
+
* Rethinking Free Culture
−
: Wrongs of the Internet
+
* Wikipedia Analysis (attn: the term "Wikipedia" is trademarked.  Can we use this name?) or WikiAnalysis
−
: Rethinking Free Culture
+
* WikiReader (Americans will remember the "Weekly Reader" from Grade school &hellip; although this might not work for an international audience)
−
: Wikipedia Analysis (attn: the term "Wikipedia" is trademarked.  Can we use this name? ) or WikiAnalysis
+
* Center for Internet Criticism
−
: WikiReader (Americans will remember the "Weekly Reader" from Grade school &hellip; although this might not work for an international audience)
+
* Internet Ethics Report
−
: Center for Internet Criticism
+
* Internet Concerns
−
: Internet Ethics Report
+
* The Folly of Crowds
−
: Internet Concerns
+
* CyberCulture Review
−
: The Folly of Crowds
+
* Leaving Pseudopia
−
: CyberCulture Review
+
* 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==
Line 100: Line 125:  
*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)
Retrieved from "https://mywikibiz.com/Special:MobileDiff/71351...73104"

Navigation menu