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

"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

1. Anonymity.

2. Lack of a functional social contract.

1. Anonymity.

2. Lack of a functional social contract.

Anonymity does have a place, its place is everywhere other than articles namespace. As simple as that.

Anonymity does have a place, its place is everywhere other than articles namespace. As simple as that.

You either have Principles or you don't. You can't claim to honor a Principle of Verifiability in Article space while failing to honor it in Policy space. Wikipedia proves time and again the absurdity of thinking that you can maintain a double standard in regard to basic principles.

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Wed 5th March 2008, 12:58pm

Anonymity does have a place, its place is everywhere other than articles namespace. As simple as that.

You either have Principles or you don't. You can't claim to honor a Principle of Verifiability in Article space while failling to honor it in Policy space. Wikipedia proves time and again the absurbity of thinking that you can maintain a double standard in regard to basic principles.

Jonny

Here is where I disagree, I think the exchange of knowledge is essential and that everyone has to have a word. Anonymity could even have a role as sometimes sources which one could not usually provide under his true name (under the fear of being accused of anti- or pro- etc.) would do it anonymously. On the other hand, the way those informations are presented, balanced, filtrated etc., and then given to the population should be where we should be cautious about. The final product of the exchange of information is the article itself.

So, basically.

*Exchange of information, anonymity is OK

*Presentation of the exchange of information, which final product is the article, full disclosure, no anonimity.

Also, the exchange of information should not be accessed unless someone is registered and logged.

This post has been edited by Xidaf: Tue 4th March 2008, 11:22pm

Anonymity does have a place, its place is everywhere other than articles namespace. As simple as that.

You either have Principles or you don't. You can't claim to honor a Principle of Verifiability in Article space while failing to honor it in Policy space. Wikipedia proves time and again the absurdity of thinking that you can maintain a double standard in regard to basic principles.

Jonny

Here is where I disagree, I think the exchange of knowledge is essential and that everyone has to have a word. Anonymity could even have a role as sometimes sources which one could not usually provide under his true name (under the fear of being accused of anti- or pro- etc.) would do it anonymously. On the other hand, the way those informations are presented, balanced, filtrated etc., and then given to the population should be where we should be cautious about. The final product of the exchange of information is the article itself.

So, basically.

* Exchange of information, anonymity is OK.

* Presentation of the exchange of information, which final product is the article, full disclosure, no anonymity.

Also, the exchange of information should not be accessed unless someone is registered and logged.

Where have you been?

You are talking like one of those first-year librarian bloggers who just heard about Wikipedia and thinks it sounds like a really hyper-cool idea but hasn't actually registered a full-blooded account yet.

There's nothing even half-way reality-based to respond to in your remarks.

Jonny

This post has been edited by Jonny Cache: Wed 5th March 2008, 3:06pm

I don't think you carefully read to what you have replied. What I have presented doesn't look like Wikipedia at all.

Anonymity does have a place, its place is everywhere other than articles namespace. As simple as that.

You either have Principles or you don't. You can't claim to honor a Principle of Verifiability in Article space while failling to honor it in Policy space. Wikipedia proves time and again the absurbity of thinking that you can maintain a double standard in regard to basic principles.

Jonny

Here is where I disagree, I think the exchange of knowledge is essential and that everyone has to have a word. Anonymity could even have a role as sometimes sources which one could not usually provide under his true name (under the fear of being accused of anti- or pro- etc.) would do it anonymously. On the other hand, the way those informations are presented, balanced, filtrated etc., and then given to the population should be where we should be cautious about. The final product of the exchange of information is the article itself.

So, basically.

* Exchange of information, anonymity is OK

* Presentation of the exchange of information, which final product is the article, full disclosure, no anonimity.

Also, the exchange of information should not be accessed unless someone is registered and logged.

Where have you been?

You are talking like one of those first-year librarian bloggers who just heard about Wikipedia and think it sounds like a really hyper-cool idea but haven't actually registered a full-blooded account yet.

There's nothing even half-way reality-based to respond to in your remarks.

Jonny