Wiki-Induced Kognitive Insufficiency (WIKI), Enough Symptomatics! What Is The Cause? Options Rating

[Jonny Cache]

"In order to learn you must desire to learn …"

"Ay, there's the rub …"

What is it, then, about Wikipedia, if not indeed about the whole wiki paradigm, that is proving to be such a massive failure in promoting the sharing of information, learning, knowledge, wisdom, all that good stuff — at least once that critical threshold is passed, in the direction of increasingly uncritical thought?

Well, I know the dynamics of our own sweet Etopia well enough to know that nothing so meditative will compete with the Main Distraction on the Midway this week … or the next … but I thought I might leave this note to self, just in case things get dull toward the Ides.

P.S. I was going to call it Wiki-Induced Learning Disorder but the acronym WILD might have made it sound like a good thing.

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Mon 3rd March 2008, 2:01pm

[Jonny Cache]

Repeating the lead, just in case anyone was interested in that.

"In order to learn you must desire to learn …"

"Ay, there's the rub …"

What is it, then, about Wikipedia, if not indeed about the whole wiki paradigm, that is proving to be such a massive failure in promoting the sharing of information, learning, knowledge, wisdom, all that good stuff — at least once that critical threshold is passed, in the direction of increasingly uncritical thought?

[Kato]

Repeating the lead, just in case anyone was interested in that.

"In order to learn you must desire to learn …"

"Ay, there's the rub …"

What is it, then, about Wikipedia, if not indeed about the whole wiki paradigm, that is proving to be such a massive failure in promoting the sharing of information, learning, knowledge, wisdom, all that good stuff — at least once that critical threshold is passed, in the direction of increasingly uncritical thought?

Try and think of a hypothetical scenario. Imagine, say, that yourself, me, Herschelkrustofsky and Jimbo Wales created a small wiki where we were trying to create a series of pieces analysing the rules of golf. The four of us are using this wiki privately, collaborating betweem us, with the aim of presenting a finished body of work for the public consumption.

What could go wrong? What are the pitfalls? Are there any pitfalls?

[AB]

Try and think of a hypothetical scenario. Imagine, say, that yourself, me, Herschelkrustofsky and Jimbo Wales created a small wiki where we were trying to create a series of pieces analysing the rules of golf. The four of us are using this wiki privately, collaborating betweem us, with the aim of presenting a finished body of work for the public consumption.

What could go wrong? What are the pitfalls? Are there any pitfalls?

Well, I'm thinking you, Jonny, and Herschel probably wouldn't get
along with Jimmy. Where that would go would depend on who
held the power.

You probably should've used Persons A, B, C, and D, where none
of them have ever heard of each other.

[dogbiscuit]

Try and think of a hypothetical scenario. Imagine, say, that yourself, me, Herschelkrustofsky and Jimbo Wales created a small wiki where we were trying to create a series of pieces analysing the rules of golf. The four of us are using this wiki privately, collaborating betweem us, with the aim of presenting a finished body of work for the public consumption.

What could go wrong? What are the pitfalls? Are there any pitfalls?

Well, I'm thinking you, Jonny, and Herschel probably wouldn't get
along with Jimmy. Where that would go would depend on who
held the power.

You probably should've used Persons A, B, C, and D, where none
of them have ever heard of each other.

Actually, the analysis has more legs because of it.

Let's imagine Jimbo as the practical golfer, who is a little bit casual about the rules: what's the problem with moving the ball to a better position? Can't find the ball, I'll use this one. That was nearly in. He might be less than keen on a detailed analysis. Oh, and he is good friends with Mr Ping.

On the other hand Jon might be the detailed theoretician who has never seen a golf club in his life, but has a tonne of source material, who insists on sticking by the sources in spite of the practical knowledge of the other three. Kato might be the irritating one who can never take anything seriously and is disrupting the editing by harmless but irrelevant witticisms.* It may be that H has already written the definitive work and does not take kindly to being corrected, hell, he wrote the rule book.

Just because they are few in number, does not mean that they are isolated from the problems of a larger wiki. The major issue on any collaborative venture, even with a common goal, seems to be personality.

*Always wanted an excuse to quote my school report.