Changes

==Announcement==

==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.

*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.

*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.

::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.

 

:'''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

: 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

: 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.

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.

'''Comments on suggested names:'''

'''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)

: 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)

==Reserved domain names==

==Reserved domain names==