Comments on: There is no Fork http://www.robhyndman.com/2006/09/17/there-is-no-fork/ any technology distinguishable from magic is not sufficiently advanced Tue, 02 Dec 2008 22:19:20 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Glenn Fleishman http://www.robhyndman.com/2006/09/17/there-is-no-fork/#comment-14939 Glenn Fleishman Sun, 17 Sep 2006 19:34:48 +0000 http://www.robhyndman.com/2006/09/17/there-is-no-fork/#comment-14939 I certainly I agree with you, then, on *who* is participating. But haven't you contributed to Wikipedia only to find an area in which you know what's what removed, or edited poorly? Haven't you read discussions and history in which you see how those with years of acquired knowledge (ivory tower or no) are dismissed? I don't see how the two groups come together because there's a fundamental governance problem. Wikipedia believes in emergent authoritativeness. The Citizendium folk(s), as far as I can tell, believe in guided authoritativeness. I certainly I agree with you, then, on *who* is participating. But haven’t you contributed to Wikipedia only to find an area in which you know what’s what removed, or edited poorly? Haven’t you read discussions and history in which you see how those with years of acquired knowledge (ivory tower or no) are dismissed?

I don’t see how the two groups come together because there’s a fundamental governance problem. Wikipedia believes in emergent authoritativeness. The Citizendium folk(s), as far as I can tell, believe in guided authoritativeness.

]]> By: Rob Hyndman http://www.robhyndman.com/2006/09/17/there-is-no-fork/#comment-14935 Rob Hyndman Sun, 17 Sep 2006 19:12:39 +0000 http://www.robhyndman.com/2006/09/17/there-is-no-fork/#comment-14935 Certainly I don't mean officially, Glenn. But generally, people who write are those who know what they're writing about, and ditto people who edit. From the community, there are people who can knowingly contribute to all topics of interest, the idea obviously goes. I just really don't see why the two groups can't come together on an agreed hybrid. Certainly I don’t mean officially, Glenn. But generally, people who write are those who know what they’re writing about, and ditto people who edit. From the community, there are people who can knowingly contribute to all topics of interest, the idea obviously goes. I just really don’t see why the two groups can’t come together on an agreed hybrid.

]]> By: Glenn Fleishman http://www.robhyndman.com/2006/09/17/there-is-no-fork/#comment-14931 Glenn Fleishman Sun, 17 Sep 2006 19:03:56 +0000 http://www.robhyndman.com/2006/09/17/there-is-no-fork/#comment-14931 Come now, there is no expert guidance in Wikipedia. Expertise is not rewarded or recognized. There's no test for authority. There's no requirement for identity (which the new project requires -- only registered users will be able to make changes, but the bar to registration is likely just an email address, which allows anonymity). There's no way to keep stuff from flapping (edits going back and forth between competing camps) without protection, which is used very sparingly. If you read posts in which Wikipedia editors get directly involved, you find some very weird authoritarian decisions that rely on weird, internal logic and a lack of definition of what reality is. Read the discussion on danah boyd, and you'll find the explanation that Ms. boyd doesn't have to right to spell or capitalize her own name, only the New York Times does. I have hopes for the new project depending on how they define their paramteters. Come now, there is no expert guidance in Wikipedia. Expertise is not rewarded or recognized. There’s no test for authority. There’s no requirement for identity (which the new project requires — only registered users will be able to make changes, but the bar to registration is likely just an email address, which allows anonymity). There’s no way to keep stuff from flapping (edits going back and forth between competing camps) without protection, which is used very sparingly.

If you read posts in which Wikipedia editors get directly involved, you find some very weird authoritarian decisions that rely on weird, internal logic and a lack of definition of what reality is. Read the discussion on danah boyd, and you’ll find the explanation that Ms. boyd doesn’t have to right to spell or capitalize her own name, only the New York Times does.

I have hopes for the new project depending on how they define their paramteters.

]]>