Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Futures Of Open Source Information (FOOSI)
> Wikimedia Discussion > Meta Discussion
Jonny Cache
QUOTE(Emperor @ Mon 20th August 2007, 3:57pm) *

QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Mon 20th August 2007, 1:58pm) *

That's what I thought I was here for, too.

Since projects in the Sanger-Wales mould — and I do mean Wiki-Phungi — of Wikipedia and Citizendium are just such evident (if not yet self-evident) dead horses as far as the Future Of Open Source Information (FOOSI) goes, I am naturally much more interested in converting what we can learn from their Wiki-Postmortems into some kind of guidance for the next round of experiments.

Now, I always thought that a certain amount of participatory parody of Wikipedia was just an obligatory but enjoyable part of the therapy, but maybe not everyone is seeing the joke. I dunno.

Jonny cool.gif


Yes the FOOSI is most interesting. I'm glad to know there are like minds here.


So Let's Break Out Of That Meta*Review Cave and Pre-Amble Toward The Light !!!

Jonny cool.gif
GlassBeadGame
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Mon 20th August 2007, 2:10pm) *

Since projects in the Sanger-Wales mould — and I do mean Wiki-Phungi — of Wikipedia and Citizendium are just such evident (if not yet self-evident) dead horses as far as the Future Of Open Source Information (FOOSI) goes, I am naturally much more interested in converting what we can learn from their Wiki-Postmortems into some kind of guidance for the next round of experiments.



Information doesn't want to be free. Information doesn't want anything. Some people want information to be free. Some people don't. No result is preordained.

I think the lesson of WP is about governance. Wales imbued to the project with his laissez-faire beliefs. His established weak institutions (weak WMF B/T, understaffed, individual donations funding, no accountability to stakeholders) and shifted all editorial guidance to an ill defined community. What has taken hold is the reign of the warlords of a dysfunctional social networking community. It is a tyranny akin to The Lord of Flies. It is toxic for any serious, knowledgeable person who would like to work on the encyclopedic project.

So the question is..."How can we better govern the next project of FOOSI?"

JohnA
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Mon 20th August 2007, 9:36pm) *

Information doesn't want to be free. Information doesn't want anything. Some people want information to be free. Some people don't. No result is preordained.

I think the lesson of WP is about governance. Wales imbued to the project with his laissez-faire beliefs. His established weak institutions (weak WMF B/T, understaffed, individual donations funding, no accountability to stakeholders) and shifted all editorial guidance to an ill defined community. What has taken hold is the reign of the warlords of a dysfunctional social networking community. It is a tyranny akin to The Lord of Flies. It is toxic for any serious, knowledgeable person who would like to work on the encyclopedic project.


I think those sentences are something that practically all of us agree on.

Whatever else Wikipedia may think it is, it is a warning for future historians about what can happen in weak societies when they try to establish truth by consensus, and fact by verifiability.
Jonny Cache
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Mon 20th August 2007, 4:36pm) *

QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Mon 20th August 2007, 2:10pm) *

Since projects in the Sanger-Wales mould — and I do mean Wiki-Phungi — of Wikipedia and Citizendium are just such evident (if not yet self-evident) dead horses as far as the Future Of Open Source Information (FOOSI) goes, I am naturally much more interested in converting what we can learn from their Wiki-Postmortems into some kind of guidance for the next round of experiments.


Information doesn't want to be free. Information doesn't want anything. Some people want information to be free. Some people don't. No result is preordained.

I think the lesson of WP is about governance. Wales imbued to the project with his laissez-faire beliefs. His established weak institutions (weak WMF B/T, understaffed, individual donations funding, no accountability to stakeholders) and shifted all editorial guidance to an ill defined community. What has taken hold is the reign of the warlords of a dysfunctional social networking community. It is a tyranny akin to The Lord of Flies. It is toxic for any serious, knowledgeable person who would like to work on the encyclopedic project.

So the question is … "How can we better govern the next project of FOOSI?"


I gotta run off to dinner and a movie — Invasion of the Scientologists is playing at The Majestic tonight — so let me just recommend to your ATTN once again the remarks of The Kohser that I quoted in this post. There is nothing ill-defined about the architecture and dynamics of a through-composed, well-tempered confidence game — whether Dumb D'oh!volition or Intelligent Design on Duh Founderers' parts I leave to another time.

Jonny cool.gif
BobbyBombastic
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Mon 20th August 2007, 4:36pm) *

Information doesn't want to be free. Information doesn't want anything. Some people want information to be free. Some people don't. No result is preordained.

Nice post, GBG. I especially like the part I quoted above, and imagined someone saying something like this to a kool aide drinking Wikipedian, or like minded individual, and then imagined the dull look that would cross over their face. I bet it would be something like this: mellow.gif

I agree with the other assessments you made in your post as well.

An aside, WP has an article on the "Information wants to be free" statement, which appears to be the usual hodge podge of semi interesting material and utter bullshit.
D.A.F.
My proposition still stick, why should we not build a true alternatives, learning from experience a better, more accurate product? The fact of a superior product will be the best critic against Wikipedia. We can even invite good contributors on that new project. Remaining on the level of simple criticism is not as constructive than a better product. A place where most people REALLY participate to write an encyclopedia.
Emperor
Postmortem:

Successes:
1) Attracted tens of thousands of contributors. (someone must like anonymity)
2) Articles are often better than similar articles on other websites (clear, direct, leads are mainly good, or at least better than competing websites. Many articles are thorough and encyclopedic.)
3) Antisemitic, holocaust-denying, conspiracy theorizing whack-jobs that have been the bane of the internet so far not running amock.

Failures:
1) Overrun by role-playing schoolchildren and the unemployed
2) Unclear about licensing, plagiarism, copyvio, BLP, child protection, and a host of other legal problems
3) Article quality satisfactory sometimes, but never really great (garbled language, wordiness, boring, lengthy, academic tone, factual inaccuracies). Close to tipping point where poor edits exceed good ones
4) Current success aided by quirks of Google search engine
5) Axe-grinders and professionals taking ownership of some articles
6) Unable to retain good contributors and especially experts
7) Possible to identify contributors fairly easily (chilling effect on wanna-be anons)
8) 1000+ abusive and/or clueless admins
9) Broken, convoluted dispute resolution process
10) MediaWiki clunky and difficult for beginners
11) Better for now, but other websites bound to hire decent designers someday
12) Weak financials - no money to retool if another site begins to catch up

The free content site that could supercede Wikipedia:
1) Attracts thousands of contributors
2) Offers complete, thorough, virtually unbreakable anonymity and and only divulges names +/- IP addresses under court order.
3) Is fun to participate in.
4) Churns out quality articles
5) Has light-handed, nearly invisible admins
6) Has a clear, workable plan to keep itself out of legal trouble (rather than just whacking problems as they come up) and sticks to it in a predictable manner.
7) Will do well on Google (at least until Google goes away)

The site that could make free content encyclopedias obsolete:
1) A professional encyclopedia written by real paid writers
2) Web developers and marketing people are beaten with a stick until they stop crapping up the screen and make it as easy to get to relevant info as it is on Wikipedia.
3) No tricks to get you to subscribe or buy anything. Small, unobtrusive ads if anything.

Or something like that. I don't have much time to think now but these are just my impressions having been a WP contributor for about a year and a lurker/contributor here on WR for about a month.
Jonny Cache
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Mon 20th August 2007, 5:15pm) *

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Mon 20th August 2007, 4:36pm) *

QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Mon 20th August 2007, 2:10pm) *

Since projects in the Sanger-Wales mould — and I do mean Wiki-Phungi — of Wikipedia and Citizendium are just such evident (if not yet self-evident) dead horses as far as the Future Of Open Source Information (FOOSI) goes, I am naturally much more interested in converting what we can learn from their Wiki-Postmortems into some kind of guidance for the next round of experiments.


Information doesn't want to be free. Information doesn't want anything. Some people want information to be free. Some people don't. No result is preordained.

I think the lesson of WP is about governance. Wales imbued to the project with his laissez-faire beliefs. His established weak institutions (weak WMF B/T, understaffed, individual donations funding, no accountability to stakeholders) and shifted all editorial guidance to an ill defined community. What has taken hold is the reign of the warlords of a dysfunctional social networking community. It is a tyranny akin to The Lord of Flies. It is toxic for any serious, knowledgeable person who would like to work on the encyclopedic project.

So the question is … "How can we better govern the next project of FOOSI?"


I gotta run off to dinner and a movie — Invasion of the Scientologists is playing at The Majestic tonight — so let me just recommend to your ATTN once again the remarks of The Kohser that I quoted in this post. There is nothing ill-defined about the architecture and dynamics of a through-composed, well-tempered confidence game — whether Dumb D'oh!volition or Intelligent Design on Duh Founderers' parts I leave to another time.

Jonny cool.gif


When I say Information, I am never thinking merely of the static product but always about the dynamic processes that dig it up and dole it out — let us say, the processes of Inquiry and Education, just to take one likely pair of names. Folding in all those extra words would've made for an ugly acronym, but let's try to keep the Process aspect of things in mind if not exactly cached in a Jonny Mnemonic way.

I would like to introduce Greg's analysis of a question that comes up again and again, because I think that it casts a high beam on very puzzling phenomenon that we need to examine before we go any further.

QUOTE(Gregory Kohs @ Technoracle, 16 Aug 2007, 12:03 PM)

Duane, I have commented with thousands of words across the Internet about various ailments with which Wikipedia is afflicted. I won't rehash them here. What I'll instead do is present a short hypothesis about why intelligently-written new articles about "advanced" subjects are so frequently deleted from Wikipedia:
  1. The majority of the most active administrators and administratively-oriented editors on Wikipedia are either minors, or they are adults who have not yet held salaried positions with management responsibilities. In this sense, they lack real-world experience in vast areas of knowledge.
  2. Wikipedia has emerged as the most salient domain where these types of people have been able to elevate themselves to leadership positions, usually pseudonymously.
  3. When they see a new article, skillfully written, about a subject area in which they lack expertise, their instinctive reaction is to delete it. Why? This will alienate the (probably older, more experienced) authors who created it, and therefore shore up their own power-control of the editorial process on their favorite website.
Source. Gregory Kohs, Re: Duane Nickull, "Has Wikipedia Been Hijacked?", 16 Aug 2007.


Jonny cool.gif
Emperor
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Mon 20th August 2007, 9:16pm) *

QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Mon 20th August 2007, 5:15pm) *

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Mon 20th August 2007, 4:36pm) *

QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Mon 20th August 2007, 2:10pm) *

Since projects in the Sanger-Wales mould — and I do mean Wiki-Phungi — of Wikipedia and Citizendium are just such evident (if not yet self-evident) dead horses as far as the Future Of Open Source Information (FOOSI) goes, I am naturally much more interested in converting what we can learn from their Wiki-Postmortems into some kind of guidance for the next round of experiments.


Information doesn't want to be free. Information doesn't want anything. Some people want information to be free. Some people don't. No result is preordained.

I think the lesson of WP is about governance. Wales imbued to the project with his laissez-faire beliefs. His established weak institutions (weak WMF B/T, understaffed, individual donations funding, no accountability to stakeholders) and shifted all editorial guidance to an ill defined community. What has taken hold is the reign of the warlords of a dysfunctional social networking community. It is a tyranny akin to The Lord of Flies. It is toxic for any serious, knowledgeable person who would like to work on the encyclopedic project.

So the question is … "How can we better govern the next project of FOOSI?"


I gotta run off to dinner and a movie — Invasion of the Scientologists is playing at The Majestic tonight — so let me just recommend to your ATTN once again the remarks of The Kohser that I quoted in this post. There is nothing ill-defined about the architecture and dynamics of a through-composed, well-tempered confidence game — whether Dumb D'oh!volition or Intelligent Design on Duh Founderers' parts I leave to another time.

Jonny cool.gif


When I say Information, I am never thinking merely of the static product but always about the dynamic processes that dig it up and dole it out — let us say, the processes of Inquiry and Education, just to take one likely pair of names. Folding in all those extra words would've made for an ugly acronym, but let's try to keep the Process aspect of things in mind if not exactly cached in a Jonny Mnemonic way.

I would like to introduce Greg's analysis of a question that comes up again and again, because I think that it casts a high beam on very puzzling phenomenon that we need to examine before we go any further.

QUOTE(Gregory Kohs @ Technoracle, 16 Aug 2007, 12:03 PM)

Duane, I have commented with thousands of words across the Internet about various ailments with which Wikipedia is afflicted. I won't rehash them here. What I'll instead do is present a short hypothesis about why intelligently-written new articles about "advanced" subjects are so frequently deleted from Wikipedia:
  1. The majority of the most active administrators and administratively-oriented editors on Wikipedia are either minors, or they are adults who have not yet held salaried positions with management responsibilities. In this sense, they lack real-world experience in vast areas of knowledge.
  2. Wikipedia has emerged as the most salient domain where these types of people have been able to elevate themselves to leadership positions, usually pseudonymously.
  3. When they see a new article, skillfully written, about a subject area in which they lack expertise, their instinctive reaction is to delete it. Why? This will alienate the (probably older, more experienced) authors who created it, and therefore shore up their own power-control of the editorial process on their favorite website.
Source. Gregory Kohs, Re: Duane Nickull, "Has Wikipedia Been Hijacked?", 16 Aug 2007.


Jonny cool.gif


Puzzling indeed. Identifying and excluding minors and inexperienced adults from leadership positions would be a big change, but I don't believe that it would remake Wikipedia into a paradise of fairness, egalitarianism, truth, and accuracy. Do you?


QUOTE(Xidaf @ Mon 20th August 2007, 8:28pm) *

My proposition still stick, why should we not build a true alternatives, learning from experience a better, more accurate product? The fact of a superior product will be the best critic against Wikipedia. We can even invite good contributors on that new project. Remaining on the level of simple criticism is not as constructive than a better product. A place where most people REALLY participate to write an encyclopedia.


I've started encyc.org. If you have any good ideas, now's your chance to get in on the ground floor. I'm offering free Level 70 upgrades to the first ten contributors.
D.A.F.
Thanks, have you already worked with the policies?
Jonny Cache
QUOTE(Emperor @ Mon 20th August 2007, 10:49pm) *

Puzzling indeed. Identifying and excluding minors and inexperienced adults from leadership positions would be a big change, but I don't believe that it would remake Wikipedia into a paradise of fairness, egalitarianism, truth, and accuracy. Do you?


Too much Cabernet to Internet right now, but what I saw in Greg's capsule assay was something like this:

It's not so much that people at different levels of experience, knowledge, maturity, whatever are brought together to work toward the same goals. People who have been thinking about and working toward the growth of genuine learning communities since long before Wikipedia came down the wikipike have seen no reason why such a mix could not sort itself out in a natural way, and to the benefit of all concerned.

But the Wikipedia Formula has poisoned the brew in a very peculiar way, and so the wikimedium that it infects is chock full of harmful ingredients that need to be isolated and removed before wiki environments can throng once more with life and wits — and not just thrive in the way of a virus that devours our humanity like hominy grits. I have struggled to articulate the critical flaws many times myself, but I think that Greg has succeeded in pinning down one of the biggest bugs in the ointment with as few words as possible.

Jonny cool.gif
Emperor
QUOTE(Xidaf @ Mon 20th August 2007, 10:01pm) *

Thanks, have you already worked with the policies?


Not yet. I don't want to paint myself into a corner. They will probably be fairly minimalist, e.g. I think it would be best if we stuck with American English (I can't stand those wacky British spellings).
Emperor
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Mon 20th August 2007, 10:20pm) *

It's not so much that people at different levels of experience, knowledge, maturity, whatever are brought together to work toward the same goals. People who have been thinking about and working toward the growth of genuine learning communities since long before Wikipedia came down the wikipike have seen no reason why such a mix could not sort itself out in a natural way, and to the benefit of all concerned.


Could you give an example of one of these idyllic genuine learning communities? I used to mess around on USENET and found the signal to noise ratio was usually pretty low. As far as other wikis I haven't found anything remotely useful other than the documentation for some of them.
GlassBeadGame
QUOTE(Emperor @ Mon 20th August 2007, 8:57pm) *


I've started encyc.org. If you have any good ideas, now's your chance to get in on the ground floor. I'm offering free Level 70 upgrades to the first ten contributors.


Well at least Encyclopedia Nova Caesarea does have a stub on New Jersey. I'd tease you worse if it didn't. Do you really suggest this is the way forward?
Emperor
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Mon 20th August 2007, 10:45pm) *

QUOTE(Emperor @ Mon 20th August 2007, 8:57pm) *


I've started encyc.org. If you have any good ideas, now's your chance to get in on the ground floor. I'm offering free Level 70 upgrades to the first ten contributors.


Well at least Encyclopedia Nova Caesarea does at least have a stub on New Jersey. I'd tease you worse if it didn't. Do you really suggest this is the way forward?


I don't see any other successful Wikipedia-competitors out there, especially ones not using the MediaWiki engine. So yes, yes I do see this as a baby step forward. I realize the odds of any wiki hitting critical mass are pretty slim, but I don't see what's to stop me from trying. At the very least, it's kind of fun to create encyclopedia articles from scratch. Kind of reminds me why I used to enjoy Wikipedia.
Jonny Cache
QUOTE(Emperor @ Mon 20th August 2007, 11:38pm) *

QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Mon 20th August 2007, 10:20pm) *

It's not so much that people at different levels of experience, knowledge, maturity, whatever are brought together to work toward the same goals. People who have been thinking about and working toward the growth of genuine learning communities since long before Wikipedia came down the wikipike have seen no reason why such a mix could not sort itself out in a natural way, and to the benefit of all concerned.


Could you give an example of one of these idyllic genuine learning communities? I used to mess around on USENET and found the signal to noise ratio was usually pretty low. As far as other wikis I haven't found anything remotely useful other than the documentation for some of them.


Oh gosh, I don't know of any Actual that achieves the Idyll, and UseNet would have been about the last thing that came to mind in that connection. The first requirement of a genuine learning community would have to be that its participants really want to learn, and more than they want a whole lot of other things that tend to get in the way. Given that, there's no reason why the rest of the structure cannot sort itself out in accord with who has the information and who wants the information about a given subject.

I know lots of people who appear, at least on the surface, to be as happy as larks in this or that setting. So the fact that I find the settings in question to be lacking in some respect is probably just that I'm asking too much.

Still, it seems that there are specific reasons for each of the less-than-ideal systems that I have known.

Jonny cool.gif
Daniel Brandt
Oxymoronic:
QUOTE(Emperor @ Mon 20th August 2007, 7:32pm) *

The free content site that could supercede Wikipedia:
...
2) Offers complete, thorough, virtually unbreakable anonymity and and only divulges names +/- IP addresses under court order.
...
5) Has light-handed, nearly invisible admins
6) Has a clear, workable plan to keep itself out of legal trouble (rather than just whacking problems as they come up) and sticks to it in a predictable manner.

You may as well add:
7) Changes human nature, society, and hundreds of years of legal evolution, and makes it possible for everyone to live happily ever after.
GlassBeadGame
QUOTE(Emperor @ Mon 20th August 2007, 10:03pm) *

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Mon 20th August 2007, 10:45pm) *

QUOTE(Emperor @ Mon 20th August 2007, 8:57pm) *


I've started encyc.org. If you have any good ideas, now's your chance to get in on the ground floor. I'm offering free Level 70 upgrades to the first ten contributors.


Well at least Encyclopedia Nova Caesarea does at least have a stub on New Jersey. I'd tease you worse if it didn't. Do you really suggest this is the way forward?


I don't see any other successful Wikipedia-competitors out there, especially ones not using the MediaWiki engine. So yes, yes I do see this as a baby step forward. I realize the odds of any wiki hitting critical mass are pretty slim, but I don't see what's to stop me from trying. At the very least, it's kind of fun to create encyclopedia articles from scratch. Kind of reminds me why I used to enjoy Wikipedia.


Well I guess that's sincere. I think you should solicit 2 or 3 very strong articles prior to roll out. Each with a very small team (2 or 3) editors and copy edited as more or less finished and polished pieces. You could refer to them as the standard you would like to meet in other article. Don't encourage a "granular" editing. The idea is to show collaboration doesn't need to be a hodge-podge.
guy
QUOTE(Emperor @ Tue 21st August 2007, 4:23am) *

I think it would be best if we stuck with American English (I can't stand those wacky British spellings).

Oh - so that's me excluded then. sad.gif
Kato
QUOTE(Emperor @ Tue 21st August 2007, 4:23am) *

I think it would be best if we stuck with American English (I can't stand those wacky British spellings).

Groan. Yeah those English are so weird in the way they spell er... English. And who needs the British anyway? What have they ever contributed to encyclopaedia building?

QUOTE(Emperor @ Mon 20th August 2007, 7:32pm) *

The free content site that could supercede Wikipedia:
...
2) Offers complete, thorough, virtually unbreakable anonymity and and only divulges names +/- IP addresses under court order.

Please be aware that one of the most important and consistent complaints about WP is the anonymity of the contributors. It is often given as the core cause for its failings.

Sorry to sound negative, but I urge you to really consider whether you have the stomach to start something like this. That's not a good start.
Emperor
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Mon 20th August 2007, 11:11pm) *

Oxymoronic:
QUOTE(Emperor @ Mon 20th August 2007, 7:32pm) *

The free content site that could supercede Wikipedia:
...
2) Offers complete, thorough, virtually unbreakable anonymity and and only divulges names +/- IP addresses under court order.
...
5) Has light-handed, nearly invisible admins
6) Has a clear, workable plan to keep itself out of legal trouble (rather than just whacking problems as they come up) and sticks to it in a predictable manner.

You may as well add:
7) Changes human nature, society, and hundreds of years of legal evolution, and makes it possible for everyone to live happily ever after.


What's your alternative? No free content sites, and we go back to sparsely updated, uninformative, overly-commercialized ratholes with overteched and confusing design? If Britannica or Encarta could put up decent sites they would eat Wikipedia for lunch, but so far they haven't. And the world's scientific, historical, political, and other organizations are hardly doing any better.

QUOTE(guy @ Tue 21st August 2007, 1:45am) *

QUOTE(Emperor @ Tue 21st August 2007, 4:23am) *

I think it would be best if we stuck with American English (I can't stand those wacky British spellings).

Oh - so that's me excluded then. sad.gif


Sorry didn't mean to be exclusive. You can pretend to spell like an American, right? I've just endured far too many pissing contests over at the WP to want to see the same policy again. There are better things to waste time on. Everyone will accuse the system of bias anyway, so might as well make some choices that make life easier and don't really amount to anything more consequential than spelling.

QUOTE(Kato @ Tue 21st August 2007, 5:05am) *

QUOTE(Emperor @ Tue 21st August 2007, 4:23am) *

I think it would be best if we stuck with American English (I can't stand those wacky British spellings).

Groan. Yeah those English are so weird in the way they spell er... English. And who needs the British anyway? What have they ever contributed to encyclopaedia building?

QUOTE(Emperor @ Mon 20th August 2007, 7:32pm) *

The free content site that could supercede Wikipedia:
...
2) Offers complete, thorough, virtually unbreakable anonymity and and only divulges names +/- IP addresses under court order.

Please be aware that one of the most important and consistent complaints about WP is the anonymity of the contributors. It is often given as the core cause for its failings.

Sorry to sound negative, but I urge you to really consider whether you have the stomach to start something like this. That's not a good start.


I'm sorry, I guess I was confusing. My list of attributes wasn't necessarily what I hope that encyc.org will do, and I'm not at all sure that technically I could offer something like unbreakable anonymity. This is just a hobby/experiment at this point. If it catches on, great. If not, well then hopefully I've learned something about how hard it is to do something, and I won't be such a critical a-hole all the time.

As for the anonymity, I disagree. I think there will always be a place for anonymity on the web, or there should be. The sheer popularity of Wikipedia, anonymous web forums, and UseNet before that points to a desire on the part of many to remain anonymous. Give them what they want.

I don't think the answer is just to do the opposite of whatever Wikipedia does.
guy
QUOTE(Kato @ Tue 21st August 2007, 11:05am) *

Groan. Yeah those English are so weird in the way they spell er... English. And who needs the British anyway? What have they ever contributed to encyclopaedia building?

We invented the language. tongue.gif

And the British invented the Encyclopaedia Britannica - yes, I know it's now produced in America, but it hasn't half declined since we exported it.
Emperor
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Mon 20th August 2007, 11:17pm) *


Well I guess that's sincere. I think you should solicit 2 or 3 very strong articles prior to roll out. Each with a very small team (2 or 3) editors and copy edited as more or less finished and polished pieces. You could refer to them as the standard you would like to meet in other article. Don't encourage a "granular" editing. The idea is to show collaboration doesn't need to be a hodge-podge.


Good idea. Thanks for the tip.
Kato
QUOTE(Emperor @ Tue 21st August 2007, 1:10pm) *

As for the anonymity, I disagree. I think there will always be a place for anonymity on the web, or there should be. The sheer popularity of Wikipedia, anonymous web forums, and UseNet before that points to a desire on the part of many to remain anonymous. Give them what they want.

I don't think the answer is just to do the opposite of whatever Wikipedia does.

The problem is that anonymous web forums, UseNet, and wikipedia for that matter do not provide comparative models for how we should construct encyclopedias.

Creating a good encyclopedia is a laborious, serious business that requires real expertise and good management. Getting it badly wrong, as wikipedia has done, and yet now dominating human information and knowledge is a disaster for us all.

This isn't something you can just play around with. Many, many great people have dedicated their lives helping educate future generations, helping us understand the world in which we live. Putting in hard work. Facing serious peer reviews. Being genuinely contentious about everything from the smallest detail to the largest theory. Being professional. It takes a bit of time and effort, but it works. And it benefits society.

Cobbling together a few scraps of transient information, much of it of dubious origin, calling it an "encyclopedia" and peddling it for free is not anyone's answer. Whether Der Jimbo is doing the peddling or someone new. Rather put the work in and get it right. Than toss something off, get it wrong, and spoil a generation of readers with cheap unreliable crap.

QUOTE(guy @ Tue 21st August 2007, 1:12pm) *

QUOTE(Kato @ Tue 21st August 2007, 11:05am) *

Groan. Yeah those English are so weird in the way they spell er... English. And who needs the British anyway? What have they ever contributed to encyclopaedia building?

We invented the language. tongue.gif

And the British invented the Encyclopaedia Britannica - yes, I know it's now produced in America, but it hasn't half declined since we exported it.

Hmmm. Was my sarcasm too cloaked Sir Guido?
Emperor
QUOTE(Kato @ Tue 21st August 2007, 8:37am) *

The problem is that anonymous web forums, UseNet, and wikipedia for that matter do not provide comparative models for how we should construct encyclopedias.

Creating a good encyclopedia is a laborious, serious business that requires real expertise and good management. Getting it badly wrong, as wikipedia has done, and yet now dominating human information and knowledge is a disaster for us all.

This isn't something you can just play around with. Many, many great people have dedicated their lives helping educate future generations, helping us understand the world in which we live. Putting in hard work. Facing serious peer reviews. Being genuinely contentious about everything from the smallest detail to the largest theory. Being professional. It takes a bit of time and effort, but it works. And it benefits society.

Cobbling together a few scraps of transient information, much of it of dubious origin, calling it an "encyclopedia" and peddling it for free is not anyone's answer. Whether Der Jimbo is doing the peddling or someone new. Rather put the work in and get it right. Than toss something off, get it wrong, and spoil a generation of readers with cheap unreliable crap.



I think that the kids are a little more resilient than you give them credit for. I used to read all kinds of crap growing up, and still manage to wake up and tie my own shoes in the morning. I think that the main problem is if we lose other, more traditional sources, so there is less diversity in what is available. However I don't see the death of book publishing as a result of my little project or even Jimbo's.

And forgive me but I'm not impressed by the great people, peer-reviewed, hard-working professionals argument. I spent enough years at a prestigious university to know what these people are really doing, and basically it's not pulling their own weight in society. Thus far the world's academics have failed to publish coherent, organized, accessible information on the web. If they ever want to get into that game, I don't know anyone who wouldn't welcome them.

In short, yes I do think that this is something I can play around with. Playing around with stuff is what made this country great.
JoseClutch
QUOTE(Daniel Brandt @ Tue 21st August 2007, 12:11am) *

Oxymoronic:
QUOTE(Emperor @ Mon 20th August 2007, 7:32pm) *

The free content site that could supercede Wikipedia:
...
2) Offers complete, thorough, virtually unbreakable anonymity and and only divulges names +/- IP addresses under court order.
...
5) Has light-handed, nearly invisible admins
6) Has a clear, workable plan to keep itself out of legal trouble (rather than just whacking problems as they come up) and sticks to it in a predictable manner.

You may as well add:
7) Changes human nature, society, and hundreds of years of legal evolution, and makes it possible for everyone to live happily ever after.


I would definitely participate in an online encyclopedia that could do that!

Seriously, though, Citizendium has it right about having everyone reveal who they are. In fact, Citizendium (in principle) knows how to solve what's wrong with Wikipedia - it just isn't interested in duplicating what's right with Wikipedia, oddly enough.
Jonny Cache
QUOTE(JoseClutch @ Tue 21st August 2007, 1:11pm) *

Seriously, though, Citizendium has it right about having everyone reveal who they are. In fact, Citizendium (in principle) knows how to solve what's wrong with Wikipedia — it just isn't interested in duplicating what's right with Wikipedia, oddly enough.


Citizendium has reproduced every single fundamental flaw of Wikipedia except for the one about anonymity. And added a Borg Bureaucracy on top of that, just for good messer.

Jonny cool.gif
Kato
QUOTE(Emperor @ Tue 21st August 2007, 6:00pm) *

I think that the kids are a little more resilient than you give them credit for. I used to read all kinds of crap growing up, and still manage to wake up and tie my own shoes in the morning.

You obviously don't have any children, have very little knowledge of how children learn, or have probably never read kids' essays these days. Despite edicts everywhere about wikipedia, kids still hand them in stolen piecemeal from WP. Kids overwhelming believe that wikipedia is reliable, and measures to teach kids that it isn't are being implemented world wide at some cost to us. There is a significant, growing movement against WP, made up of educators, academics and so on. You know... people who are actually qualified to assess this thing.

QUOTE(Emperor @ Tue 21st August 2007, 6:00pm) *

And forgive me but I'm not impressed by the great people, peer-reviewed, hard-working professionals argument.

You don't sound like the sort of person who would be. People like you never are. Hard work and expertise are just sooooo old maaannn.

QUOTE(Emperor @ Tue 21st August 2007, 6:00pm) *

I spent enough years at a prestigious university to know what these people are really doing, and basically it's not pulling their own weight in society.

Yeah. What have universities ever given us? Burn 'em down I say.

QUOTE(Emperor @ Tue 21st August 2007, 6:00pm) *

In short, yes I do think that this is something I can play around with. Playing around with stuff is what made this country great.

Which country do you have in mind?

Well if you want to continue with your ill fated project, on your head be it. But don't come running back here when it all goes pear-shaped, you find yourself out of your depth and regretting what you've unleashed on an ungrateful world. In future, when you people "play around" with knowledge, can you please do it in your own backyards. As far away from a google search - and my children - as possible.
Emperor
QUOTE(Kato @ Tue 21st August 2007, 3:33pm) *

You obviously don't have any children, have very little knowledge of how children learn, or have probably never read kids' essays these days. Despite edicts everywhere about wikipedia, kids still hand them in stolen piecemeal from WP. Kids overwhelming believe that wikipedia is reliable, and measures to teach kids that it isn't are being implemented world wide at some cost to us. There is a significant, growing movement against WP, made up of educators, academics and so on. You know... people who are actually qualified to assess this thing.


Come on. Kids are ignorant, almost by definition. They will always have to be taught to consider the source, whether they grow up reading 1950's textbooks, pulp fiction, Japanese graphic novels, Harry Potter, encyclopedias, or the backs of baseball cards. There will always be someplace claiming to have easy answers, and kids who will want to plagiarize rather than do their homework. It's the job of parents and teachers to spend some time with them and not pin their kids' ignorance on a single boogeyman, whether it be a stupid online encyclopedia, the Man, Hollywood, pop culture, or any other lame excuse.

QUOTE(Kato @ Tue 21st August 2007, 3:33pm) *

QUOTE(Emperor @ Tue 21st August 2007, 6:00pm) *

And forgive me but I'm not impressed by the great people, peer-reviewed, hard-working professionals argument.

You don't sound like the sort of person who would be. People like you never are. Hard work and expertise are just sooooo old maaannn.

I said if they show up to play, they would be welcome. There's a void right now, and the amateurs are filling it. The pros are too busy filling out grant applications, publishing in arcane journals that no one will ever read, and fighting with administrations to bother with anything so mundane as educating the public, despite the fact that they live largely off tax dollars and philanthropic donations.

QUOTE(Kato @ Tue 21st August 2007, 3:33pm) *

QUOTE(Emperor @ Tue 21st August 2007, 6:00pm) *

I spent enough years at a prestigious university to know what these people are really doing, and basically it's not pulling their own weight in society.

Yeah. What have universities ever given us? Burn 'em down I say.

They used to be quite useful. Now they are just businesses, like anything else, and they function to funnel money to professors, administrators, and staff. A lot has changed since the marriage of PowerPoint and lazy burn-out professors. We need real universities more than ever.

QUOTE(Kato @ Tue 21st August 2007, 3:33pm) *

Well if you want to continue with your ill fated project, on your head be it. But don't come running back here when it all goes pair-shaped, you find yourself out of your depth and regretting what you've unleashed on an ungrateful world. In future, when you people "play around" with knowledge, can you please do it in your own backyards. As far away from a google search - and my children - as possible.


Well I'm beginning to think that you think this is a bad idea. Fair enough.
Jonny Cache
Bumping this thread to the top again. It is a bit rambling — what are the odds!? — but it does appear to have a few decent exchanges in it where we discussed that Goverment Thing last time around.

Jonny cool.gif
Moulton
QUOTE(Emperor @ Mon 20th August 2007, 11:38pm) *
Could you give an example of one of these idyllic genuine learning communities?

I co-founded one such learning community back in 1990, and later wrote this retrospective on the experiment...

Bring a Candle, Not a Sparkler
Jonny Cache
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Tue 21st August 2007, 12:08am) *

QUOTE(Emperor @ Mon 20th August 2007, 11:38pm) *

QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Mon 20th August 2007, 10:20pm) *

It's not so much that people at different levels of experience, knowledge, maturity, whatever are brought together to work toward the same goals. People who have been thinking about and working toward the growth of genuine learning communities since long before Wikipedia came down the wikipike have seen no reason why such a mix could not sort itself out in a natural way, and to the benefit of all concerned.


Could you give an example of one of these idyllic genuine learning communities? I used to mess around on USENET and found the signal to noise ratio was usually pretty low. As far as other wikis I haven't found anything remotely useful other than the documentation for some of them.


Oh gosh, I don't know of any Actual that achieves the Idyll, and UseNet would have been about the last thing that came to mind in that connection. The first requirement of a genuine learning community would have to be that its participants really want to learn, and more than they want a whole lot of other things that tend to get in the way. Given that, there's no reason why the rest of the structure cannot sort itself out in accord with who has the information and who wants the information about a given subject.

I know lots of people who appear, at least on the surface, to be as happy as larks in this or that setting. So the fact that I find the settings in question to be lacking in some respect is probably just that I'm asking too much.

Still, it seems that there are specific reasons for each of the less-than-ideal systems that I have known.

Jonny cool.gif


QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 31st October 2007, 7:23am) *

QUOTE(Emperor @ Mon 20th August 2007, 11:38pm) *

Could you give an example of one of these idyllic genuine learning communities?


I co-founded one such learning community back in 1990, and later wrote this retrospective on the experiment …




Looking back over What I Did Last Summer — there's an absolutely classic MAD Magazine parody on that theme that I will hunt down for y'∀ ∃day — and inspired to many anamnisusesises by Moulton's Rouge reminiscences, I would have to say now that Centiare has the right floor plan to do the ®ight §tuff™, and I lament the fact that people are wasting so much of their lives and scared [sic] honours on Wikipedia and even Citizendium to see the brilliance of its potential.

Jon Awbrey
Kato
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 31st October 2007, 11:23am) *

QUOTE(Emperor @ Mon 20th August 2007, 11:38pm) *
Could you give an example of one of these idyllic genuine learning communities?

I co-founded one such learning community back in 1990, and later wrote this retrospective on the experiment...



That's an interesting link, Moulton. Thanks for that. It has given much to think over.

See you in the New Year whilst I mull over the content. wink.gif
GlassBeadGame
QUOTE(Kato @ Wed 31st October 2007, 4:09pm) *

QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 31st October 2007, 11:23am) *

QUOTE(Emperor @ Mon 20th August 2007, 11:38pm) *
Could you give an example of one of these idyllic genuine learning communities?

I co-founded one such learning community back in 1990, and later wrote this retrospective on the experiment...



That's an interesting link, Moulton. Thanks for that. It has given much to think over.

See you in the New Year whilst I mull over the content. wink.gif


It will take a while to work through the material this link point toward. I have began looking at a few. It seems that this is much the same path as taken by Jonny Cache. I will let him elaborate. Suffice it say that both you and he exhibited a high level of scholarship, an understanding of building "communities of inquiry" as Jonny would say, arrived with the best of intentions, worked diligently and are today both banned users. I believe that the commonality validates the view that something went wrong that neither of you caused.

My own vision is not to different.
Moulton
QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 31st October 2007, 6:35pm) *
It will take a while to work through the material this link points toward. I have began looking at a few. It seems that this is much the same path as taken by Jonny Cache. I will let him elaborate. Suffice it say that both you and he exhibited a high level of scholarship, an understanding of building "communities of inquiry" as Jonny would say, arrived with the best of intentions, worked diligently and are today both banned users. I believe that the commonality validates the view that something went wrong that neither of you caused.

My own vision is not too different.

It occurs to me that the assembled outcasts on this site include a disproportionate number of academics with a background in systems science. Those of us who engage in systems analysis and diagnostic reasoning tend to evoke an allergic reaction in the old guard who embrace and defend the dysfunctional status quo.

My theory of what went wrong doesn't begin and end with Wikipedia. It begins and ends with something far more fundamental and anachronistic. I've written about it in other settings, but I've failed to translate the analytical theory into a compelling story.

Here is but one feeble attempt at spelling it out...

Jonny Cache
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 31st October 2007, 6:56pm) *

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Wed 31st October 2007, 6:35pm) *

It will take a while to work through the material this link points toward. I have began looking at a few. It seems that this is much the same path as taken by Jonny Cache. I will let him elaborate. Suffice it say that both you and he exhibited a high level of scholarship, an understanding of building "communities of inquiry" as Jonny would say, arrived with the best of intentions, worked diligently and are today both banned users. I believe that the commonality validates the view that something went wrong that neither of you caused.

My own vision is not too different.


It occurs to me that the assembled outcasts on this site include a disproportionate number of academics with a background in systems science. Those of us who engage in systems analysis and diagnostic reasoning tend to evoke an allergic reaction in the old guard who embrace and defend the dysfunctional status quo.

My theory of what went wrong doesn't begin and end with Wikipedia. It begins and ends with something far more fundamental and anachronistic. I've written about it in other settings, but I've failed to translate the analytical theory into a compelling story.

Here is but one feeble attempt at spelling it out …



Random thoughts while I run back and forth to the door — and not a little sugar buzz from snitching the odd Box'o'Dots when the co-treater of the house lapses at watching the candy bowl.

Those of us Xpediots and Luvin' Miserables who once shared the Dream of a true learning community springing up where only the Wiki-Wind Howls O'er The Wiki-Prairie Now have shared these lemming-tations many times before — Hell Hath No Furies Like Willing Suspenders Of Disbelief Let Down.

Your ErrFunk is the type of Σoid Threshold Function that I used to use in many Decision-Theoretic (D-T) and Neural Network (NN) applications to smooth out the Hysteresis of Walking the Razor's Edge Barefoot In The Head (REBITH?).

Gotta Dash —

Jonny cool.gif
Moulton
One of the issues that comes up when one seeks to craft a learning community is that different people have different preferences and predilections for how they learn.

A colleague of mine who has done a lot of research on such differences has proposed a model of four different types of learners. Of the four types, the group that is hardest to reach is what she calls the Resistant Learner.

As near as I can tell, the Resistant Learner is the one most likely to become embroiled in emotionally turbulent personal drama.
WhispersOfWisdom
http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/10/30/detai...ng-social-apps/

Hello?

Has anyone seen this one yet?

Google you do or Google you don't, Google will be involved! rolleyes.gif

Maybe WP won't be on top anymore?
Jonny Cache
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 31st October 2007, 7:55pm) *

One of the issues that comes up when one seeks to craft a learning community is that different people have different preferences and predilections for how they learn.

A colleague of mine who has done a lot of research on such differences has proposed a model of four different types of learners. Of the four types, the group that is hardest to reach is what she calls the Resistant Learner.

As near as I can tell, the Resistant Learner is the one most likely to become embroiled in emotionally turbulent personal drama.


There's a body of current research by a couple of Canadians on what they call the Certainty Orientation versus the Uncertainty Orientation.

Maybe I linked it here or here.

Links @ 11 …

Jonny cool.gif
Jonny Cache
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 31st October 2007, 8:24pm) *

Yes, that's the very research group I had in mind —

Sorrentino, Richard M., and Roney, Christopher J.R. (2000), The Uncertain Mind : Individual Differences in Facing the Unknown, Taylor and Francis, Philadelphia, PA.

That Heart Of Higher Education Conference Blog is apparently no longer being maintained and has in the meantime been overrun by spambots, so here's a copy of the exchange that I was trying to remember:

QUOTE(Michael Glaser @ 05 Mar 2007)

Developmental Stages

I've been thinking more and more about the importance of Robert Kegan's notion that we need to address carefully the developmental stages of our students and not expect that they will find fascinating or important the things we find important. As I consider my own desire to engage my students in thinking about ways to meaningfully transform the information they gather, I realize that I do not know enough about the developemntal stages of 18–21 year olds. I wonder if anyone could provide with some recommendations of reading that would be lively and helpful. I have not read Kegan's The Evolving Self which seems like a natural place to start. I wonder if anyone who has, would recommend it.

Thanks, Michael Glaser

Source. Michael Glaser, Developmental Stages


QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ 12 Mar 2007)

Thirst for Knowledge and Fear of Knowledge

Michael, Just a thought that came to mind as I read your note.  Although it's been a long time since I taught in a classroom, my participation in online communities — everything from academic list-serves to Wikipedia — has brought me into continuing discussion with people who are in the 16–26 age range.  One of the things that strikes me about this group is the severity of the struggle between a thirst for knowledge on the one hand and a certain apprehension about or even a fear of knowledge on the other.  When I ask myself why this might be, my best guess at present turns on a certain universal of human experience that appears to be especially acute at this age.  The human factor is this, that the incipient recognition of how little we know, and the fact that others might know something that we don't, makes us feel small and a little afraid.

One of the books that I remember being most helpful to me personally in this connection was John Dewey's Quest for Certainty, though I find that it's still something of a challange to draw out all of its developmental implications for practice.

Dewey, John (1929), The Quest for Certainty : A Study of the Relation of Knowledge and Action, Minton, Balch, and Company, New York, NY. Reprinted, pp. 1–254 in John Dewey, The Later Works, 1925–1953, Volume 4 : 1929, Jo Ann Boydston (ed.), Harriet Furst Simon (text. ed.), Stephen Toulmin (intro.), Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL, 1984.

Source. Jon Awbrey, Thirst for Knowledge and Fear of Knowledge


Jonny cool.gif
Jonny Cache
QUOTE(Moulton @ Wed 31st October 2007, 7:55pm) *

One of the issues that comes up when one seeks to craft a learning community is that different people have different preferences and predilections for how they learn.

A colleague of mine who has done a lot of research on such differences has proposed a model of four different types of learners. Of the four types, the group that is hardest to reach is what she calls the Resistant Learner.

As near as I can tell, the Resistant Learner is the one most likely to become embroiled in emotionally turbulent personal drama.


As you might expect, Wikipediots have a page that "covers" Resistant Learners.

It's called WP:OSTRICH.

If you want to get banned faster than an ostrich can find its hole (in the ground) — and who docent, if they know what's good for them? — just allude to the Categorical Imperative, "Don't Be An Ostrich", in a discussion with a resistant learner, especially a WikiPediAdmin.

Jonny cool.gif
Moulton
There is nothing new under the sand.
Jon Awbrey
I continue to think that we should return to our dreams, learn from the nightmares that some of them became, and start e-visioning what the post-Sanger-Wales era in Computer-Aided Learning Media (CALM) ought to look like.

That was The Big Idea that I had in mind here, so I may spend some time sorting the wit from the chafe and trying to get this line of inquiry back on course.

Jon Awbrey
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.